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

Revision as of 22:45, 14 August 2020 view sourceWugapodes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors20,186 edits →Disruptive edit summaries: My high school latin teacher was right, this would be useful one day← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:54, 22 January 2025 view source Ponyo (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators171,968 edits →IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles: update
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{short description|Page for discussing incidents that may require action by administrators and experienced editors}}		{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
			{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
	<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header}}</noinclude>__TOC__{{clear}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|maxarchivesize = 800K		|maxarchivesize =800K
	|counter = 1044		|counter = 1177
	|algo = old(72h)		|algo = old(72h)
	|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c		|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
Line 10:		Line 10:
	|headerlevel=2		|headerlevel=2
	}}		}}
			{{stack end}}
	<!--		<!--
	NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE		NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
Line 15:		Line 16:
	NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->		NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
			== ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles ==
	== Socionics ==
			{{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)}}
	<!-- ] 03:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1597721525}}
			] 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.
	{{pagelinks|Socionics}}
			* was deleted for ]
	There are attempts to remove classification as pseudoscience from very reliable sources , , . There is a long-running conflict over socionics in the Russian Misplaced Pages. Almost all supporters of socionics were permanently blocked. --] (]) 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
	* Here are two editors that remove RS: {{userlinks|ThesariusQ}} , {{userlinks|Sounderk}} — they seem like sock- or meatpuppetry (like in ru-wiki) intended for violation of ] rule. --] (]) 15:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
	**{{u|Q Valda}}, can you link to the blocked accounts on ru-wiki? Seeing that they are blocked and why would help your case. But yes, the two accounts you link to here are ]s, and ThesariusQ especially looks like a sockpuppet (if not that, a meatpuppet), in terms of appearing out of nowhere when needed. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 16:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
	*** Blocked accounts of socionics supporters:
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	**** ]
	*** --] (]) 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
	* Two more editors with the same modus operandi: {{userlinks|Igor RD}} , and anonym – – . --] (]) 21:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC) and one more {{userlinks|Echidna1000}} --] (]) 08:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
	:: It's worth noting that Gennadiy Frolov has the exact same userpage formatting as ThesariusQ with the weird sub-heading with the username, I think it's clear that they are the same user. ] (]) 22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
	::: ] edits are completely identical to the edits of ] in ru-wiki ,,,. Later ] took part in the editing of the Socionics article and restored the QuantumBorg version . Тhey seem like sock- or meatpuppetry.--] (]) 13:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
	::::QuantumBorg edited exactly once on the 14th. Q Valda has previously edited the article in 2018, and resumed recently on the 29th. I don't see the problem there - as opposed to the pro-fringe editors who all rotated in and out in the course of a day to game the ] rule. - ] (]) 13:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::::The connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is obvious. QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits, and Q Valda defended them in Enwiki. This was the cause of the edit war.--] (]) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
	::::::MrOllie has it right. I address this here: And ThesariusQ is themselves the subject of an SPI: ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::: ''QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits'' — wrong. There is consensus in ru-wiki about pseudoscientific nature of socionics. Here are diffs on some edits from different people (including admin) — , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , --] (]) 16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Two points.
	::::::1) Consensus on ru.wiki has no bearing on en.wiki
	::::::2) {{tq|non-consensual}}
	::::::'']'' &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::: {{Ping|HandThatFeeds}} Don't mock users who clearly don't speak English as their first language about their word choices, it's obvious what they are trying to say and you have contributed nothing to the discussion. ] (]) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::Point 1 of my comment ''explicitly'' added to the discussion. And I added point 2 to lighten the tone of my comment, so it wasn't just "you're wrong." I apologize if it came across as mean-spirited, as that was not my intent. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 22:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::What goes on at ru-wiki is of interest here in an advisory capacity, however, especially since socionics is mainly a thing only in post-Soviet nations, and Q Valda is talking about ru-wiki to rebut ThesariusQ's claims that ru-wiki found it is not pseudoscience. I understood "non-consensual" to mean "against consensus". <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	===Proposed block===
	{{userlinks|ThesariusQ}} and his sock/meatpuppets {{userlinks|Sounderk}}, {{userlinks|Igor RD}}, and {{userlinks|Echidna1000}} should be blocked.
	*1. At ], Sounderk and ThesariusQ were "possilikely" to each other. Igor RD was "possible". Igor RD and Echidna1000's behavior makes them obvious meatpuppets at best. There's also an IP. The SPI is presently awaiting administration and close after CheckUser.
	*2. Above, unusual userpage formatting was pointed to by {{u|Hemiauchenia}} to show that ThesariusQ is almost certainly Gennadiy Frolov, one user of many who is indeffed on ru-wiki.
	*3. , ThesariusQ pointed to a comment by a "neutral participant" on ru-wiki, but {{u|Q Valda}} showed this is by another of ThesariusQ's socks. (As Q Valda well put it, they are "part of pro-socionics puppet-show".)
	*4. {{u|MrOllie}} noted above that the sock/meatpuppets were used to violate 3RR prior to ]' extended confirmed protection. This is easily visible in the page history on 30 and 31 July 2020.
	The above shows a clear pattern of deception on the part of ThesariusQ and their sock/meatpuppets. Ru-wiki has also had a major issue with sockpuppetry and other misbehavior in this area, leading to blocks of very many fringe theory proponents, as explained above. Such behavior is disruption and should be stopped. And ThesariusQ is still continuing to push ] views about socionics at ] and ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	*I blocked Thesarius and Sounderk; see my note on the SPI. I have not looked at Igor or the other. ] (]) 01:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	**Thank you. We'll see if the other two accounts step in to help him again. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 15:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			* on ] and ] grounds
	== Aspersions at ARS ==
			* on ] and ]
	*{{userlinks|1=7&6=thirteen}}
	*{{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list}}
			*They've been warned about ] and .
	User is continuing to re-insert personal attacks at ] after they were reverted by me. Another editor reverted my removal and advised me to simply redact the offending portion, which I did, but 7&6 once again undid my redaction to reinsert the personal attack. In this case, the attack was the casting of aspersions on "the usual suspects" who showed up to "stealth delete" an article. This was an assumption of bad faith on all the participants of the various AFDs (three in total I think; the actual situation was a bit complicated).
			*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
	This further goes against the general principle of focusing on content (or even process) rather than contributors. And it's not in line with the ostensible purpose of the project page it was posted on, which is for improving articles at AFD to the point where they can be kept, not for kvetching about an outcome you missed and didn't like.
			*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
	I'm requesting that the attack (and yes, it's an attack) be removed, and for this to be kept in mind in case there are any similar problems in the future. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 17:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Simple statement of facts with appropriate links. This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process. No one is mentioned by name.
	:If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Or it could be argued it is a ''good'' thing about the process as it allows fresh views/consensus to emerge. - ] (]) 18:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Don't make ]y comments and not own up to it when challenged. I don't even care about the underlying issue but all this pointless inflammatory comments you make like "agenda fulfilled" and "stealth deletion" is what gives ARS a bad rap. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|Sitush}} It only works one way - for deletion. You can put an article up for deletion often- I have seen 12 AfDs on one article. However one recreation of an article brings a G4. ] (]) 18:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::But 7&6=13 was talking of deletion, so recreation isn't the issue here. On the other hand, G4 won't apply if the article is significantly different. The bar for deletion is pretty high usually, and that "no consensus" defaults to "keep" increases the sense of that and is contrasts weirdly with the spirit of BURDEN etc. - ] (]) 19:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{pb}}Calling people the usual suspects to push an agenda in secret is a personal attack. You have now added yet another with , alleging that people are trying to act in secret. As I attempted to do with the redaction, a simple notification of the events is one thing, but assigning nefarious motives to the "usual suspects" is not. Please revert your personal attacks. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 18:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*I don't understand what happened. The article ] was nearly a SNOW keep with lots of participation. Then someone moved the page to ]. Followed by a new AfD just months later with a unanimous delete result by a small number of participants (no Keep voters from the original AfD were there). It is strange. How did this happen? It's not like consensus would change that radically in a few months, or so many Keep voters would suddenly all loose interest in participating. -- ]] 18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:{{re|GreenC}} Trying to figure out what happened is fine. We also have ] for reviewing in case something went wrong. The personal attacks are not fine, and this is why I brought this up, not the odd sequence of deletion/move events. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': This is a big ], in that there is not a PA to be seen. It does seem like Deacon Vorbis has been edit warring over the comment in question so perhaps a boomerang is warranted. DV made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment (here are the four: , , , ). Additionally, GreenC is correct about the article's somewhat-stealthy deletion. If it walks like a duck... ] (]) 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:For the record, I made 2 full reverts and one redaction; I undid a third revert of my own to err on the safe side of 3RR (which frankly should be granted a little leeway for personal attacks anyway, but that's another story). Accusing people of behaving stealthily and to promote an agenda is a personal attack. Canvassing for like-minded editors at ] for a purely behavioral issue as 7&6 did is problematic as well. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::Not accurate, I listed four times you refactored. was a refactor of your , after you were warned for edit warring. ] (]) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:::You don't get to count a fourth when someone immediately reverts himself. I reverted the fourth one of those immediately, before any warning was made (check the timestamps, I reverted myself 13 minutes before any warning was left, and even if it were after, that's still usually good enough). That leaves me at 2 or 3 (depending on how you count the {{tlx|rpa}}, which was even advised in place of a full revert). &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 19:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*Meh. I don't see much different from {{tq|I'm still baffled at your obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article....I ] and your befuddlement (or deliberate blindness) is irrelevant}}, {{tq|No thanks to you and this wasted exercise}}, {{tq|Keep your mask on and your head down}} (while at the same time another editor for an ''ad hominem''). All in a days work. ]] 18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:Not sure why you'd "meh" after finding more examples of similar problems. Maybe some sort of (partial) topic ban? Just spitballing, maybe something like "no personal comments at ARS/AFD/other deletion-related venues"? This would allow 7&6 to still list articles at RSL and participate in AFDs as long as they don't get personal about anything. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	:I talked about process only.
	:There was no ].
	:Unlike ] who has been blocked three times for them, and know what he is talking about.
	:He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress. Bad policy; slippery slope. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 19:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Statements like {{tqq|He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress}} are uncivil. That you don't understand that is mind-boggling. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::] That you don't understand ] seems to befit you. So my mind is not boggled. But I am bothered by the policy implications. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 19:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::IMO the "worst" part is that you make your uncivil comments, which are sometimes outright personal attacks, in separate edits, and you just keep on compounding them. These are nine of your most-recent fifteen edits:
	::::#"]"
	::::#"]"
	::::#"]"
	::::#], ] (])
	::::#Describing the above as "Simple statement of facts" and asserting "This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process.", while excusing it because "No one is mentioned by name.", and then ending with "]" - You're contradicting yourself: are you exposing a secret, or was no one mentioned by name, or does the shoe fit?
	::::#"]"
	::::#"]"
	::::#"]" - That doesn't even make sense. I'm complaining about things you've already said; that's not prior restraint (which is stopping someone from saying something before they say it). It would be good if you exercised some restraint though, prior or otherwise. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*Just another example of the ARS types being allowed to say what they like about other people, while everyone else has to walk on eggshells. Let's be clear: when you badmouth someone and everyone knows who you're talking about, it's still a personal attack even if you don't mention their name directly. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	**Do you have any examples of this? For years you have insulted the ARS everywhere you get a chance to. And no one knows who he was talking about, no one went there to look at all the names and try to figure out who these people were. ] 22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	***Right...^ like that Reyk called me a {{tq|pathetic loser}}. you have been quite insulting. Why not post an article on the ARS page and lets work together? This animosity is quite uncomfortable. ] (]) 23:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	***Here are four recent examples of AFDs in which (1) 7&6, LB, and DF all !vote keep (twice joined by AD), and (2) at least one or more of them accuse the nom and/or delete !voters of violating policy in one way or another: ], ], ], and ]. There are many, many more like this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 23:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:::(edit conflict)The first one has ten keeps and no deletes but the nominator. The second one has 9 people voted keep, not just us. The third had six keeps and no deletes and the nominator withdrew their nomination. A lot of people voted in the fourth one. What's your point? Where exactly did someone accuse someone of something that wasn't true? Post some links. I certainly don't do that. ] 23:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	OK, let's just talk about one behavior: accusing noms/delete !voters of, e.g., not understanding policy, failing to perform a ] search, etc.:
	#]
	#*7&6: "No compliance with WP:Before."
	#*DF: "Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion."
	#*LB: "obviously a WP:BEFORE fail. WP:TROUT to nominator"
	#*7&6 again: "Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Misplaced Pages:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers"
	#]
	#*AD: "The nomination seems to misrepresent the content of the article." and "The fact that this is not understood, further demonstrates the invalidity of the nomination." which aren't uncivil or personal attacks, but are still comments directed at the nominator.
	#*7&6: "And there is an obvious and obdurate refusal to read the sources and the article and references, so that WP:Before is being flaunted."
	#] (I'm thinking of changing my username to this)
	#*7&6: "Proving WP:Before ignored."
	#*LB: "Strong Keep WP:SNOW WP:PILEON Ouch! WP:BEFORE yields a notable WWII Ace." (If a pile on is "ouch" then why are you piling on?)
	#]
	#*7&6 (emphasis in the original): "''']''' ''']''' broke a 55 year old record of the Nigerian Airforce to become '''THE FIRST NIGERIAN FEMALE COMBAT HELICOPTER PILOT''' ... Given the present sourcing, this AFD is a travesty. Clearly no compliance (pretended or otherwise) with ]."
	#*7&6 again: "But it won't satisfy the die hards. We will have to agree to disagree, and let the process play out. She should be in WP:ITN as a recent death, but we have this wasteful sideshow going on."
	#*AD: "So, case rests on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of WP:1E. Essentially it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a veneer of flawed Wikilawyering."
	#]
	#*7&6: "Rather than doing the AFD wrecking bar/crowbar — AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG — you might try a different tool I suggest that this would be a good candidate for this week's article for improvement. Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Misplaced Pages:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers."
	#*7&6 again: "Proving there was no compliance with WP:Before. The article creator's WP:SPA status is now an irrelevancy. Argumentum ad hominen fallacy."
	#]
	#*7&6: Same stock line about TAFI, "misbegotten nomination", etc.
	#*7&6 again: "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before."
	#*7&6 again: "And not even pretended compliance with WP:Before."
	#]
	#*7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
	#]
	#*7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
	#]
	#*LB: " was canvassed to this AfD." - this is an amazing statement, given that in every one of the AFDs on this list (and many more), LB, 7&6 and DF voted !keep, often joined by other ARS members.
	#*DF: "you deliberately canvassed someone you knew would agree with you on this" <-- that's what ARS does!
	#]
	#*LB: "I always find it to be bad form for a nominator to constantly diminish the article during an AfD. Please stop. and allow the AfD process to complete. It is clear that you favor deletion so diminishing the article to favor your desired outcome is not good form."
	#]
	#*The closer, {{u|Spartaz}}<!-- courtesy ping --> wrote, "I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight."
	#*Followed by ]:
	#**LB: "You had a disturbing statement in your close. ... I am not going to leave a slap like that unchallenged. ... I did not just turn up and reflexively !vote. the other ARS members did the same, ... If you have a problem with the ARS and feel like publicly dismissing their participation perhaps you should recuse yourself from the AfD. I ask that you relist or back out the closing and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the AfD."
	#**7&6: "Oh yes. You've admitted your bias. WP:ARS takes articles and improves them. ... You need to rethink your bias. ... I've been the subject of personal attacks, which claimed I "always" voted Keep. I know that isn't true. ... But if you are thinking about discounting my votes in the future, you might bear that in mind. You ought to choose your jockeys, not just your horses. ... And there are those who habitually start WP:AFDs without an effective WP:Before; half-assed observance (I WP:AGF) is often found. You need a list? In short, it is easier to delete articles than it is to create and improve them. There are those who actually brag about their body count of deleted articles."
	These are just some examples, and I'll note they have much in common. What's my point? My point is this ANI report has merit. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 01:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::You should write some articles. You have only written a few and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. You should look closer at the ] article. I ]d that article. After that I wrote about three articles for other aces - and other notable articles about organizations related. What have you done? Following and poking people and gathering diffs of nothing - sending up walls of text. I wrote these articles after McWhorter was improved... ], ], ], ], ], and an article about an acrobat ]. Also after my talk page discussion with Spartaz, they had about me. You really should edit the encyclopedia instead of following and lurking around the drama boards. You have also AfDd some articles that I started out of spite. Honestly...edit the encyclopedia...look at my edits from the last two days, I was on vacation last week so my productivity fell off, but since then I have been an editing fool. One might say....as was discussed in this ...that you are tendentious. Now lets get to work on the encyclopedia Lev. And quit following and harassing, and typing walls of texts. This is going nowhere. ] (]) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq|and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS.}} Considering how frequently I see ]'s edits on my watchlist on a variety of topics (which often disheartens me, because their arguments are typically civil and well-written and in complete disagreement with my stance politically), I am very puzzled how one can claim they go on[REDACTED] solely to harass ARS editors. The rest of this comment is a pretty unambiguous PA. ] (]) 04:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Probably thinking of the many times he's done this in the past such as at ] in the hatted section. ] 04:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::That AFD follows the same pattern as the previous 11:
	::::::::12. ]
	::::::::*LB: "... misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious ..."
	::::::::*7&6: "Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over. The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Misplaced Pages. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that. Moreover, he ignores the WP:RSsourcing of this article, including the books" - I discussed every source in the nom statement.
	::::::::*7&6 again: "Hopefully this nominator will internalize this lesson for future use and stop wasting our time on pointless exercises." <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::*You did nominate an article for deletion the same day the previous AFD closed as KEEP. Most people in the AFD who said KEEP this second time around weren't from the ARS. That should be taken into context with their statements there. ] 04:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::*:13. The first AFD followed the same ARS pattern: ], with 7&6 writing, "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before". Here's another more recent one:
	:::::::::*:14. ] - Stuff 7&6 said:
	:::::::::*:*"WP:Speedy Keep WP:Snow Keep Keep Lots of sources here and there. Meets WP:GNG. This is an example of language-based systemic bias in Misplaced Pages. No compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve."
	:::::::::*:*This exchange is great:
	:::::::::*:**{{u|Cavalryman}} (the nom)<!-- courtesy ping -->: "As opposed to casting aspersions can you indicate any of these sources? ..."
	:::::::::*:**7&6: "These dogs have similar make up, disposition and mission. ..."
	:::::::::*:**Cavalryman: "That sounds a lot like WP:Original research, do you have any source indicating these dogs are in any way related beyond your statement that they have similar make up, disposition and mission?"
	:::::::::*:**7&6: "Do you have anything that says they aren't?" <-- I mean, seriously? It's notable because you don't have any sources that says it's not notable? What do you call that kind of an argument? "Ninedentious"? "Elevendentious"? I don't remember. Back to stuff 7&6 said:
	:::::::::*:*To a delete !voter: "I assume you read the article, but maybe not."
	:::::::::*:*To Cavalryman, another statement that shows incredible lack of self-awareness: "You are attempting to pollute and dictate a result by purging legitimate sources. Let the article stand or fall at AFD on its merits, not your wrong-headed analysis. Your response also appears to be a breach of WP:Civil. It is a curious blend of stereotyping WP:Personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacy. It appears you are unfamiliar with WP:Civil; can I suggest you take the time to correct that."
	:::::::::*:*"That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice. If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up."
	:::::::::*:*"As I predicted earlier, you don't like Spanish sources, and can't read them. Misplaced Pages systemic bias. I know you won't withdraw this misbegotten nomination; and I know there is no pleasing you. We will have to let the process play out. Walls of text and nattering won't make this clearer."
	:::::::::*:*"Glad that the nominator has withdrawn this. His serial edits are self explanatory, and deserve scrutiny. Res ipsa loquitur"
	:::::::::*:*To another delete !voter: "Here's a novel suggestion. Fix the articles yourself. You have time to delete them, but not time to improve them. Or get involved with the WP:TAFI (Misplaced Pages:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia; not tearing up the tracks. It's on you; it's your moral choice"
	:::::::::*:*"CM, Your opinion is duly noted. For what it is worth. My opinion stands. No thanks to you and this wasted exercise"
	:::::::::*::That's all from just one AFD in July. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 04:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::*:::One take-home message is that if a delete voter participated in a previous AfD that's . If they didn't, that's also . ] <sub>]</sub> 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	**(edit conflict) Out of context. What I said was: "KEEP Reliable sources have been found proving it passes the general notability guidelines, and the article has been massively expanded since the time it was nominated for deletion. Also click Google news at the top of the AFD, and the first page of results has a New York Times article discussing first a single Beer Hall, then the Beer Hall in general. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/europe/germany-beer-halls.html Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion." That was not rude in any way, just pointing out how easy it was to find sources for that particular one, and politely asking them by saying the word "please". ] 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::"Easy" is relative. Eg: despite what some people in the US seem to think, not everyone in the world can access the ''NYT'' in quite the same way and it is this sort of arrogance that can really piss people off. - ] (]) 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Many US newspapers are inaccessible online in Europe because of US concerns about the effect of the EU ] - . Searching is not as easy as you might think. ] (]) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping|Sitush|Narky Blert}} I have just written ] for this. As the title is impossible to remember I also created the shortcut ]. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks, {{u|Alexis Jazz}}, and I will take a look. However, my point still stands: the arrogance of assuming everyone has access to everything is bloody annoying. There are loads of sources and repositories that are not universally accessible. - ] (]) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::{{ping|Alexis Jazz}} Thanks. Your #1 is my standard trick; it's especially good if you have a headline. I'll have a look at the others. ] (]) 14:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	* I have been pinged so I will give my 2c, the ] was a particularly robust discussion, but I wasn’t particularly concerned by any insults thrown at me. What I have observed is during an AfD (or Merger) discussion, Thirteen bombs articles with clearly self-published and unreliable rubbish sources as well as clearly irrelevant or erroneous information cited to reliable sources. If another editor raises this issue or removes these sources, Thirteen reverts then either refuses to respond to any discussion meaningfully or denies what is clearly articulated to them, this can clearly be seen by their interactions with me during ], the above linked AFD and ] as well as Thirteen’s interactions with {{u|Peacemaker67}} at ] which they chose to take to ]. I am unsure what the solution is, but this kind of behaviour is clearly not constructive. ] (]) 11:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC).
	:::As a touch point, ] has been relisted. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:25, 3 August 2020 (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.
	*People have been raising issues about ARS for literally more than a decade. The page has been MfDed over and over again, there have been RfCs, there have been noticeboard threads. Sometimes it's about one member that inevitably turns into a discussion of ARS; sometimes it's about ARS and then focuses on one or two members. There's always evidence of battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, and canvassing, and there's always evidence of articles improved and sources found. There are fingers pointed back at the "deletionists" and the discussion always sprawls to be about deletion process, notability, behavioral issues of several different people, and eventually the purpose of Misplaced Pages. The most common outcome goes something like this: "The fundamental ARS idea is good, there are good outcomes, and there are also problems. Knock off the battleground stuff and be more careful about how you use the project or someday something might happen." Then we're here again. At this point I'm doubtful any of these threads will result in any sort of action. It'll probably require an arbcom case to do a full accounting of evidence. That's where complicated, sprawling behavioral issues can be separated from good projects. The problem (problem?) is, I don't know if it never quite gets bad enough to merit an arbcom case, so I'm torn. An arb case could probably help this years-long constant low-level issue, but does arbcom want to be involved with relatively low level issues? I don't know (and to be clear, I'm not actually suggesting anyone open a case at this time). For historical context, there was actually a case request in 2013 which was . &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 17:05, 3 August 2020 (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)
	:: I participate in a lot of AfDs, and only vote when I think an article should be kept, so I'm sympathetic with the goals of ARS, although I'm not part of that group myself. That being said, the quotes listed above are pretty shocking. There really isn't a good reason to talk that way in an AfD — it's nasty, it promotes an unhealthy environment, and most importantly, it doesn't actually make you any more successful at achieving your goal.
			:Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. ] ] 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I don't always live up to that myself; I've had moments of frustration and posted snarky personal things that I wish I hadn't. If someone were to go through my AfD contributions and pick out my worst moments (note: please do not do this), then I would have to look at them and say, yeah, that was unhelpful and unproductive — and most of the time, it didn't work and I lost the argument anyway. I would apologize, and I would say that I'm going to try to be better than that. That's the kind of mature self-reflection that I would expect to see from someone confronted with a big list of borderline-mean things that they'd said. I'm surprised to see people looking at those examples, and saying that it's someone else's fault. —&nbsp;] (]) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
			::I checked this ] which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. ] 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. ] (]) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. ] 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
			:*1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "]," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
			:*2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
			:*3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
			:*4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
			:*5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
			:*6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
			:*7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
			:Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "]". ] (]) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.}}
			::I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between ] and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
			::{{tq|I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.}}
			::Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails ] doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass ] and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
			::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}}
			::I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have ] issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass ] before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. ] 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			* The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that ''is'' in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. ] 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Proposal: Topic ban===
			* 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)
	Given the overall ]-mentality of the original comments that prompted this thread, as well as the subsequent ones listed by Serial and Levivich, along with the general ] response to a behavioral complaint with not only a refusal to admit that something might be wrong, but also making more of the same kinds of comment, I propose:
			* '''SUPPORT''' ban from article creation. ] ] 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{tq2|1=7&6=thirteen is banned from commenting on anyone's behavior (explicitly or implicitly, broadly construed, including, but not limited to, speculating on motives) in any discussion or edit summary involving article deletion. They may still contribute to deletion discussions, ], etc., as long as comments are focused on articles, sourcing, and so on.}}
			* '''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)
	*'''Support''' as proposer. Tweaks to the language are certainly welcome. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
			:*:Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. ] (]) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			:*'''Support''' Ban.
			:] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with ]. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored.
			::I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. ] (]) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! ] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. ] 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			*'''Comment''' I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: ]. There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) ] (]) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' This is editor is still creating dog poor articles ]. This is the second in days thats been speedied. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. ] ] 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Me (DragonofBatley) ==
	*'''Support'''- this user's snide and erroneous aspersions are becoming habit. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
			It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save {{Ping|KJP1}} the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. ] (]) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per ] and ]. It is easy to find cases of DV getting into slanging matches with other editors such as ]. ]🐉(]) 20:43, 2 August 2020 (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)
	*'''Oppose''' There was nothing uncivil and there was no PA. This is Deacon Vorbis getting all worked up and engaging in an edit war. DV is upset that there was a warning for their edit war. ] (]) 21:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' No basis for any sanction. No personal attacks. Simple statement of fact. Indeed, ].
			::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)
	:Indeed, that they are characterizing some of my defenses at this very proceeding as 'misconduct' shows the paucity of their argument and their desperation. There ought to be an evidentiary ] against use of such arguments.
			:::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)
	:If such a rule does not exist, and the statements are used, the compilation of such an accusatory list should itself justify a ]. ].
			::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost) in a new and different forum. That they did not like those results is no reason to let them rule here. And they have been hostile to me for years. I could cite to these, but ] arguments are irrelevant on both side of this proposal.
			:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
	:No reason for a ]. Bad policy. We ought to be able to comment on AFDs, and artificial, ambiguous and evanescent lines won't help. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 22:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
			:I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
	*'''OPPOSE''' Someone was upset that an article they worked to save got deleted without anyone noticing. This happens all too often. This time none of the people who voted to delete it voted in the previous AFD for it, so it is not the same people gaming the system, as does happen quite a lot. Was the AFD mentioned on a wikiproject discussion for company articles? Anyway, no reason to blow things out of proportion here. No one should edit war to erase someone's comment though. If you have a problem with it then enter a discussion about it. ] 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
			:I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
	* '''Oppose:''' Per {{u|Lightburst}} and {{u|Dream Focus}}. ''']]]''' 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - all the !votes above seem to be very tribal. If you don't like ARS, support; if you're part of ARS, oppose. Not sure they have anything much to do with the person or proposal terms. - ] (]) 04:59, 3 August 2020 (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)
	*When this type of sanction was tried with other editors, it caused more trouble than it cured. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 05:06, 3 August 2020 (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)
	:* To clarify, are you suggesting that we get rid of topic bans? ''']]]''' 05:13, 3 August 2020 (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)
	:*:No. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 05:17, 3 August 2020 (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)
	*'''Support''' per my diffs above. I also support the closing admin dismissing out of hand the comments and/or !votes here of ARS regulars (they have self-identified through the ]ing of this discussion which is microcosmic of many of the AfD discussions they pile in to). ]] 13:21, 3 August 2020 (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)
	*'''Oppose''' - I agree with Lightburst. And please...the t-ban proposal is ridiculous. A behavioral issue (and in this case, one that doesn't exist) cannot be a topic ban. Topic banning is for topics. Our admins can make much better use of their time than wasting it here. See ]. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:57, 3 August 2020 (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)
	*Am I the only one amused that in an discussion accusing ARS members of voting en bloc that a group of ARS members vote en bloc to oppose a sanction? More seriously, its not entirely the case that the ARS is a canvassing page for keep votes but there was a serious attempt many years ago (IIRC correctly and I can't be bothered to do any research to back up my assertion with evidence) to close it down because of that concern and as a response ARS members adjusted their approach and made a real effort to make more detailed & policy based arguments that defused the concern to a large degree. I have a sense that recently some votes from ARS members responding to rescue requests have drifted away from this. While I had some thoughts about this after the discussion cited above it hadn't felt like we were anywhere near the point where we needed to look at this. I do agree that some of the personalised comments need to stop and I would ask ARS members and those opposing their mission to step back a bit. It would be a good thingb if there was a bit less righteous indignation on both sides and a bit more remembering that everyone here is a volunteer with the aim of making the encyclopaedia better. Maybe its time that AFD closers simply discarded votes from users ascribing motivations to other users instead of discussing the merits of the article? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:16, 3 August 2020 (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)
	:* If we did that, then there would be a tonne of comments that are just repeats of each other. Sometimes other people either beat you to the punch, or say what you were going to say in better or more concise terms. It's not just one "type" of user that does this, it's basically everyone in any discussion - people who want it kept, people who want it deleted, people who want chocolate, people who want vanilla, people who want pink, people who want yellow, etc. Selectively discarding votes just makes it easier to ] discussions and I don't think that's a precedent anyone wants to set. <small>(For the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with ARS. Most of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent helping out with comic-related topics, getting horror articles to GA or FA quality, monitoring articles and removing chunks of original research/uncited material, and occasionally dealing with disruption or vandalism)</small>. ''']]]''' 05:35, 3 August 2020 (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)
	::*The bloc/tribal voting is kind of helping prove Deacon Vorbis's case for him. I don't think that qualifies as "irony", but it's still pretty amusing. --] &#124; ] 12:09, 3 August 2020 (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)
	:::*There is nothing nefarious here. I follow those I respect - and I respect those who work on content...7&6 is just such an editor. My interests are in content creation and improvement and the ARS and 7&6 have the same interests. If we take those who are snarly to ANI there may be quite a few among you here in the soup. I could jam up this ani of diffs of Levivich casting aspersions, following, pooping on DYKs, AfDing articles of mine, and !voting to delete articles out of spite...and serial# often cosigning. Reyk - I do not understand the extreme dislike of those who improve articles. Reyk had an editor friend who was recently indeffed and I think that they blame the ARS. I think Reyk is a fine editor - unfortunately Reyk thinks I am a pathetic loser. These discussions are brutal and they can be cathartic - yet they are also time wasters. We have articles to write and improve. ]. Cheers. ] (]) 14:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
			:::These are good points.
	::::*''There is nothing nefarious here.'' Nothing, other than the standard bloc voting that has always been ARS's stock in trade since it has existed.
			:::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)
	::::*''Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass'' Coming from you and the other ARS tribalists, that's pretty hilarious. Thanks for helping me make up my mind here on how to vote. --] &#124; ] 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
			:::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:I believe we all noticed the edit warring ] and came here. ] 16:04, 3 August 2020 (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)
	:::Which, as you well know, is one of the reasons why ARS gets so much bad press: you work as a team through that list. Perhaps not co-ordinated as such but nonetheless it is like a honeypot. It is why all the accusations of gaming canvassing restrictions have flown around for years and it is showing again in this thread. - ] (]) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (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)
	::::It was already shown previously that some things on that list get no one to go there and vote keep. Someone even did a comparison chart for everything listed and how many people from the ARS showed up each time and what the result was, and how many made improvements to the article or found sources to mention in the AFD. There is no canvassing, it nothing different than all the other Wikiprojects who list things in them. ] 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
			::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::It is very different. No other project is centred on AfD participation. As an example, again from my experience, the delsorting that goes on for the India project only rarely seems to attract experienced contributors from the project. - ] (]) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (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)
	*'''Oppose''' I wouldn't exactly call this a topic ban. ] states that topic bans relate to pages on a certain subject, so they have nothing to do with making comments about other Misplaced Pages users. That would be an IBAN. In this case, I could support a warning to both sides for mutual personal attacks, but this strange, fake "topic ban" is quite unnecessary. ] (]) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (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)
	*''Reply'' I stand by what I said. ] is something that can and should be implemented before making an AFD and before deleting an article. The various quotations are taken out of context; and what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers.<br>
			:::::::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.
	#] ''Per the closer'': "The result was speedy keep."
	#] ''Per the closer'': " The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator."
	#] ''Per the closer'': " The result was no consensus. No further comments after the article was improved"
	#] ''Per the closer'': " The result was Speedy Keep. Nominator has withdrawn, unanimous consent to Keep, helpful advice has been given, no reason to keep this up any longer."
	#] ''Per the closer'': " The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing obvious evidence of mass canvassing here to discount opinions from experienced and long standing editors."
	#] ''Per the closer'': "The result was speedy keep. The German Misplaced Pages also has a couple useful sources."
	#] ''Per the closer'': "The result was keep."
	#] ''Per the closer'': "The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn."
	#] ''Per the closer'': " The result was keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)"
	#] ''Per the closer'': " The result was keep."
	#] ''Per the closer'': " The result was delete."
	#] ''Per the closer'': " The result was keep."<br>
			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)
	They don't like the comments because they were true and effective.<br>
	This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' based on the above "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD" and "They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." I'm still not sure this sanction will be effective though. <sup>]</sup>]<sup>]</sup> 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Gosh, {{ping|Lightburst}}, maybe someone should ], don't you think? --] &#124; ] 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Thanks. It is bed time for me. Zzzzz. Apologies I find it difficult to have so much animosity directed at the ARS, and 7&6 does as well. Constant accusations, and even an admin calling us ARSHOLES... it is not your fault and you have never been WP:UNCIVIL so apologies to you if I offended. Have a good night, I am going to unfollow this sh&t show and edit articles. Makes me happier than this thread. lol. ] (]) 03:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{tqq|Constant accusations}}? This thread has ''dozen'' of quotes of accusations by 7&6 and their response -- just above -- was that because the articles were a keep, "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers ... They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." And you're saying it's ARS that is the ''target'' of the accusations? Where in those 14 AFDs in which 7&6 makes accusations against the various noms does anyone make any accusation against ARS? Nowhere. <sup>]</sup>]<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{edit conflict}}I am sure 7&6 is defensive just like I am tonight. Remember when you thought I gave you a PA and I struck it? But you will not...says a lot about you Lev. You rub your hands with glee when drama starts. Maybe 7&6 is spoiling from a bunch of "jerks" or "a&sholes" not doing their due diligence before AfDing. 7&6 is a net positive to the project. I have been a part of many saves and dyks with him. He may be a acerbic but he makes policy and guideline arguments and he is an expert at improving the articles. If you want an article whipped into shape, ask him to help. check out ] I did this a while ago and asked him t help. It is a winner now from his editing. Anyway...you guys talk amongst yourselves....I am out. I will go write some more articles. The project needs 7&6 - not sure it needs...? ] (]) 03:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Go to bed Lightburst, you're not helping anyone or anything, even with your coy {{tq|...}}. ]] 03:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Gracias {{rpa}} ] (]) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::(ec) You mean ]? I'd forgotten all about it. Must've been distracted by the recent ones: ] ] ] ] <sup>]</sup>]<sup>]</sup> 03:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::{{u|Lightburst}}, I am finding your claims that your being here is distracting you from building the encyclopedia hard to swallow. You and Thirteen teamed up in the above mentioned AfD to fill the article with completely unreliable sources, as well as utterly irrelevant information and equivocation intertwined with a little original research to blatantly ]. And you did it together, working as a team. Most charitably it could be described as attempted ], I would argue it was ]. Neither of you did a single thing to establish the subject’s notability, when called out both of you refused to discuss the issues, instead you chose to cast aspersions.
	::::::You wonder why there is {{tq|so much animosity directed at the ARS}}? It’s because some of you deliberately disrupt legitimate attempts to improve the encyclopedia, and you do so as a team. As Thirteen’s comments in this thread attest, you see some AfDs as contests to win. Such an approach detracts time from those that ARE HERE to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 09:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC).
	::::::: Very strange claim {{ping|Cavalryman}}. You are a difficult person. I see you turned the article in question ] back into a stub when your AfD failed. Nice. You generated no consensus do so...and thanks to you unilateral move, the article sucks again, just like when we found it. A clearly notable subject that you nominated without a before... and after the article was referenced, and built, up you withdrew. Next you waited a short, while and stripped out everything - going against talk page discussion. You removed: origin of the breed, appearance section, health, the See also section, the further reading, and 12 of the 14 references. Such a shame... and again, it does not serve the readers. So is there animosity directed at ARS? yes - and quite a bit comes from you. The article was a keep in that form - the talk page generated consensus not to make those changes, and you destroyed the article anyway. Congrats. Oh, and I see you changed the name of the page - also unilaterally. We saved the article because it was notable, you made a mistake..yet now you are still grinding over it, even after you have ruined it. congrats. ] (]) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::As to the Ratanero article, it was "The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator. BD2412" and the nominator was ]. And after he does that he maligns the sources, and removed them. Doing that by indirection he could not do by direction. And y'all thinks this is fine behavior? <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 21:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::: I made this comment when Cavalryman was deleting things during the AfD: {{tq|Comment every once in a while I came to an AfD. I improve the article, and then the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion. I did quite a bit of work to the article, and the work of editors should stand until this AfD completes. If anyone disagrees lets discuss on the talk page. Lightburst}}. And it looks like I was being prophetic... the evisceration happened after the AfD concluded and the article was name changed. I am sure none of this makes those who refer to me as some sort of problem and or (Arshole) will think better of me, however it should raise your eyebrows. I mean, what are we doing here? Are we building an encyclopedia-or diminishing it. ] (]) 21:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::Can either of you point to a single thing you added to the article that does not fit the above description? I note Thirteen is continuing their belligerent attempts to introduce clearly unreliable or irrelevant "sources" whilst they still have not responded to any of my very clear attempts to discuss their & Lightburst's unreliable and irrelevant contributions, both during the AfD and afterwards .
	::::::::::Further, as I clearly stated multiple times during the AfD, if reliable sources could be presented I would gladly withdraw the nomination, Neodop did so and I immediatly withdrew the nomination . ] (]) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC).
	{{od}}And now Lightburst is continuing the BATTLEGROUND behaviour after again being called out above, I await the arrival of Thirteen's !vote. Neither have given any response in the preceding TP section about their "sources". ] (]) 23:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC).
	:Getting consensus is the opposite of battleground, - here is an idea, which I do not think is my own. Lets not display ] behavior. We do things by consensus, like we do during AfD. You are acting alone in opposition to consensus. Consensus is a policy. It may be messy and not as quick as doing as you please, but it is policy. ] (]) 23:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose, with a caveat''' If there are repeated personal attacks, they can be dealt with via normal sanctions. I do not see much rising to that level here (although I do see evidence of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, even in this discussion - "''The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost)''" If you're seeing AfD as winning and losing, you're not treating it for what it is - a method of improving Misplaced Pages by both saving articles which are worthwhile, and deleting those that aren't). Any admin who is experienced in closing AfDs will know that there are certain users whose comments at AfD can generally be taken with less weight; without mentioning names, there is one long term user whose entire AfD ''modus operandi'' is to find any Google reference to the subject and say "Keep - it's been written about", but then equally there's another one whose votes are inevitably "Delete - not notable". AfD is not a head-counting operation, and any admin who treats it as one should not be closing them. ] 03:30, 5 August 2020 (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)
	*'''Support''' The examples provided by Levivich and Reyk illustrate a pattern of assume-bad-faith accusations that are not positive contributions to the consensus-building process. There are occasionally AFDs that should not have been nominated in the first place, but "SNOW KEEP" and "should not have been nominated" !votes should not be showing up in discussions that have already received a range of responses. Likewise, "No WP:BEFORE Compliance" is thrown around way too much; perhaps the nom didn't have access to all sources, wasn't impressed by the sources they found or maybe they just overlooked something. It's also concerning that 7&6 uses "Keep" outcomes to justify this behavior {{tq|"They don't like the comments because they were true and effective"}} (they're not) as if that makes it all OK. Regardless of the good work done by ARS, we need to address the battleground-style personal attacks, conspiracy theorizing and refbombing. Articles that have been improved should speak for themselves with no need for these aggressive tactics at AfD. –] ] 15:22, 5 August 2020 (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)
	:These were keep votes because the articles should be kept. And the unwillingness of editors to do their homework before trotting out an AFD is problematical. Additionally, most if not all of those articles I helped build and source; and if the sources were available to me, and resulted in keep, the ends and means are coextensive. We were building a better encyclopedia. And as debates go on, it becomes apparent that they are a ] candidate, which I might note. Indeed, the AFD nominators withdrew several of the articles complained about above.
	:As to the perception that this is a battleground mentality, I only used the word "losers" to make plain the conflict of those who appear here, and acted in an outwardly hostile and unbending manner at the AFDs. Indeed, there are those editors who boast on their talk page about the number of article the helped delete.
	:The primary goal at ] for me was and is always article improvement. If I didn't think that the article should be a keep: I would have said so, or I would not have participated in the discussion.
	:That you can blink away an Admin telling an editor that he is an "ARShole", with the support of others, says a lot. We are all volunteers here.
	:The confluence between my votes and the outcomes is because the articles deserved to be kept, and should not have been nominated in the first instance. I choose my articles to improve carefully. I have been told that I had an 87% rate where I was with the majority and the outcome. I do not personally know if that was (or is) true, as I do not scoreboard.
	:Finally, I have managed to take many articles from AFD to DYK and appearances on the main page.
	:Thank you for you consideration. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 18:44, 5 August 2020 (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)
	* '''Oppose'''. I recommend all parties involved get away from the keyboard for a while & clear their heads. Misplaced Pages will still be here while you're gone. It's Summer in the Northern Hemisphere, a good time to do something else for a while. -- ] (]) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (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)
	::This was the beginning of this brouhaha.
			:::::@]. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. ] (]) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::]
			::::::@], the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. ] (]/]) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	; later.
			:::::::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)
	::Kept. Per the closer, "the outcome <s>was</s> is now inevitable."
			:::::::::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)
	::Think about it. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 19:20, 5 August 2020 (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).
	:::Don't take my words out of context to justify your battlefield approach and to purport a view to myself that I do not ascribe to. Dial it down. It's rude and childish and should really stop right now. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::I accurately quoted you and put in the context. ] I was not trying to make you take sides here. You ought to consider carefully the use of your attack adjectives, as I don't think I gave you cause for that reaction; but I have broad enough shoulders that I can bear the weight. Sorry for any offense given; it was not intended as such. Cheers. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq|I accurately quoted you}}. Except you didn't. Spartaz said "the outcome is now inevitable". You transformed that update into something that was always the case, "the outcome was inevitable". BTW, though I'm sure this will just be filed under "sour grapes from losers", perhaps a promotional article about a search engine optimization product kept on the basis of a download count and coverage in how-to books is not a stellar example of ARS's benefit to Misplaced Pages. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::I have corrected the quote. Sorry for my error, as you are right about the timing. It should have read the Keep "outcome is now inevitable" File this under good faith errors and apology tendered. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''', there’s a lot of blame to be shared and little to gain by blocking everyone who’s stepped over the personally abusive line. ARS would be wise to caution its members about staying cool and not focusing on other editors, BUT the deck does seem stacked against them for dealing with tendentious editors and accusers who constantly poke at their efforts to identify and “rescue” articles on notable subjects. If anything ARS seems to hone in on problematic patterns of deletion that do need further attention. And BTW, it’s all largely thankless work done with a deadline. ] (]) 02:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Thank you. You hit the nail on the head, there is a lot of muddy water stirred up in this discussion but this is clarity. -- ]] 02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	* '''Comment:''' Watching this circus play out, I am strongly considering changing my vote to support sanctions on both sides of the fence. There is plenty of ] to go around here (some of which is ), and the deletion/re-creation topic area in general seems to breed a lot of toxicity. Here we have the works - battleground/tag-teamy bickering, uncivil back-and-forths, personal attacks, ] edit warring over someone quoting a personal attack in a civil context, people using alleged tribalism to try and get certain votes dismissed, etc etc. There are a few individuals here that have replied persistently (and forcefully) enough that they would be better off leaving the conflict and doing something more constructive. ''']]]''' 00:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban and sanctions. While I think that the "inclusionists" or ARS people sometimes save articles that probably shouldn't have been nominated, most if not all of the time they (including 7&6=thirteen) treat AfDs as a ] and unfairly attack nominators. Whatever their percentages are, it doesn't justify the constant personal attacks. Which they have been repeatedly asked to desist in. I don't see any of them, including 7&6=thirteen, taking responsibility for their bad behavior or doing anything to curb it. Maybe 7&6=thirteen apologized in this ANI, but I don't think it means the behavior will stop. Especially since he has mainly blown the whole thing off at the same time. Although I think we could look through anyone's AfDs edits and find instances of them attacking someone, the problem with 7&6=thirteen and other "inclusionist"/ARS people is that it's a specific, targeted, and tactical way of doing things, like Darkknight2149 points out in the comment above this one, and needs to be dealt with as such. So, I think a topic ban/sanctions is appropriate. Since I don't really see it changing otherwise. --] (]) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: To clarify, my "tag-team" comment was referring to people on both sides of the aisle. I have seen a lot of deletionists that are equally guilty of this sort of thing and there is even an ]. I have seen radical deletionist use tag-teamy tactics, intimidation, dishonesty, and accuse anyone who opposes them of being on the "]," just to delete as much stuff as possible for deletion's sake <small>(telltale signs - these users will have a history and are generally aggressive, one-note, always assume bad faith, and never oppose a deletion for anything)</small>. And yes, there are also people who are vehemently against ''anything'' being deleted for any reason, and I think we're seeing some of that here. I wish there was an easy way to weed out people with battleground tendencies, because the deletion/article creation area in general attracts a lot of this. ''']]]''' 05:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''- The sanction is actually quite mild and is tailored to specifically address the problem (and not be punitive), so I don't really see why anyone would oppose it. This has gone on far too long. While I'm of the position that the ARS needs to be disbanded since it is nothing more than a canvassing club, I find at least some of its members to be civil. This not the case with 7&6=thirteen, who is clearly the worst offender. I have been subject to his personal attacks in the past (see ). One of my first interactions with the user is when he staunchly defended keeping an article that everyone else agreed was pure plagiarism (see ). When you are start an ANI discussion over a plagiarized article being speedy deleted, that shows a pure lack of judgement. Its this keep at all costs, no matter how bad an article is attitude that is harmful.--] (]) 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' an extremely mild sanction that is well-tailored to address genuinely problematic behavior. --] (]) 00:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' These don't really rise to the level of direct personal attacks requiring sanctions per Black Kite. Most of his comments do cite policy and even if some of the insinuations were wrong, they don't really interfere with editing and can just be ignored. ] (]) 03:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Proposal''': Maybe 7&6 and Deacon need to step away from ARS for a little while (say, a couple of months?). They both seem to have gotten over-invested it and overheated. A little rest and editing elsewhere could restore perspective. ] (]) 09:43, 13 August 2020 (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.
	===Proposal: Boomerang===
	{{Archive top|Not happening and an unhelpful distraction.] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	] made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment on the ARS page: (here are the four: , , , ).
	Then DV reverted their fourth edit . DV was warned about their edit warring and then came to ANI, to complain about this comment that does not rise to this level. We have now all spent valuable editing time about this nothingburger. ] (]) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposer ] (]) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
			:There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done.
	*'''Oppose'''- silly retaliatory nonsense. ] <sub>]</sub> 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
	===Some suggestions===
	ARS seems to be a reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars. I think ARS could materially improve their image if they were to refine the process for selection of articles. Am I alone in that view? Specifically, if there was some kind of gate that excludes articles with promotional and likely paid contributions, prioritises under-represented subjects (in the style of Women In Red), and includes a rationale for rescue, which some of the better nominations do (e.g. Roger Treat: "American sportswriter, mainly in newspapers. Wrote a monumental history of American football and was an advocate for racial integration in sports").
			:Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above.
	I'm concerned that right now anyone who has a pet article that's at AfD can just list it, and have a reasonable hope of attracting a group of editors who will only vote one way. A refinement to the selection criteria would make this less like an end-run around ], which is how ARS is often perceived right now.
			: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)
	The constant lameness obscures the fact that parties on both sides of these perennial disputes are sincere and committed Wikipedians who are trying to improve the project. I see little evidence that the partisans are spending much time trying to understand each other's perspectives, which is a shame. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
			::Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? ] (]/]) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''''AFD''''' is a "reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars." :FWIW, your concerns about ] is not supported by the facts. Thousands of articles come up for repeated deletion. Few get listed at ARS, and even fewer still get a response from members. And when I participate, it is to improve the article. And the correlation of any success I have at AFDs is related almost totally to those efforts.
			:::I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —] (]) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
	:You are quick to stereotype ARS members. If criticism is warranted, you need facts. And if such generalizations are to be indulged, you ought to consider looking at both sides. ] is sometimes suspended or unevenly applied. Just look at the above discussions.
	:''Serial AFDs'' are a real and overlooked problem. It is hard to create an article; and it is far easier to delete it, especially when it is a rigged game. In fact, the AFD proponents only have to succeed once. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Well, as I intimated somewhere above, if "no consensus" didn't bizarrely mean "keep", there would probably be far fewer serial AfDs. If ARS are involved and something scrapes by because of a "no consensus" then it would probably be worthwhile for those involved in the project to bolster that article there and then but in my limited experience what tends to happen is the thing gets left more or less as it was. - ] (]) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::As a touch point, ] has been relisted. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::And in connection with that AFD, we now have an article about the company's founder, . Almost all of the sources are completely unreliable, it's pure advertising. <sup>]</sup>]<sup>]</sup> 05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Levivich}}, A subject with which I am familiar - and I agree. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::7&amp;6=thirteen, your reply is a perfect exemplar of the problem.
	::I am minded to move a topic ban from deletions based on this obvious paranoid behaviour. It is bringing out the absolute worst in you, when normally you are a decent person to be around. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	::: "No consensus" just means "no consensus for change." If you are trying get an article deleted and there is no consensus, then it would stay deleted as well. I don't really see an alternative other than not closing the discussion. It's not like we can send articles to purgatory and keep them there indefinitely until a consensus arrises. ''']]]''' 23:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Darkknight, your comment makes no sense to me. I'm guessing you mean that if someone goes to DRV for an ''undelete'' and there is no consensus then it stays deleted. But it would not have been deleted in the first place unless there was a clear consensus to do so, so the situations are not comparable. My point has always been that we have things such as ] but the spirit of these does not apply at AfD in a no consensus situation and, in many cases, the article does in fact end up in a state something like purgatory because it is neither one thing nor the other. That is why I suggested above that if the ARS people are particularly frustrated with serial AfDs then surely a reasonable course for them to take would be to actually make substantive post-AfD edits to "no consensus" keeps in order to minimise the chance of re-submission to AfD. I've lost count of the number of articles where I have revisited the AfD to locate the alleged sources that satisfied GNG etc but which were never actually inserted into the article itself even years later: sometimes they were valid, sometimes not, but in either case it really doesn't help matters and does increase the risk of a further AfD. - ] (]) 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::: Yep, that's been my finding over the years: that ARS is far less about bringing articles to a viable standard than to Thwart The Nasty Deletionists By Any Means Possible. Quite aside from those who obviously don't believe that notability standards should exist, it's too often a matter of throwing up obstacles, or complaining about more prods/XfDs than their numbers can oppose. What I see far less often is the surest way to shut the deletionists up: ''source the damn articles.'' ] 00:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::I am puzzled by your aspersions. Collaborating to improve the encyclopedia is the mission of the project. And your efforts are decidedly in the other direction. Your statement is an aspersion ...apparently aspersions only matter if they are not leveled against the ARS. This whole wall of unrelated text should be hatted. The ARS have saved a few articles that you have wrongly tagged, and you should thank us. Here is ] that you failed to investigate before tagging. Getting mad that ARS improves the encyclopedia and saves content with RS is outrageous, indefensible and ridiculous. ] (]) 00:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::You accuse Raven of casting aspersions and {{t|rpa}}'d Iri's "ARSholes" comment below, but you have yet to say anything about 7&6's aspersions and personal attacks, which are the subject of this thread. <sup>]</sup>]<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::''I am puzzled by your aspersions'' You misspelled "accurate and concise history". --] &#124; ] 03:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::It's a very simple rule. Criticism ''of'' inclusionists = personal attacks. Criticism ''by'' inclusionists = devastating truth bombs. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:I have no love at all for the ARS—I believe I was the first person to use the term "ARSholes" to describe their tag-team—but I'd strongly oppose any attempt to deem particular classes of articles more worthy of saving than others. (The most important article is the article on whatever topic you happen to be looking up; it's not for us to condemn readers for not reading more or writers for not writing more about topics we happen to consider under-represented.) FWIW I think their impact is minimal and at most a slight nuisance; every admin who works the deletion backlogs knows to disregard all comments from the ARS regulars unless they're making an actual valid point rather than the more typical variations on "keep, it exists", in the same way we all know to disregard the usual "delete, I haven't heard of it" regulars like TPH.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{u|Iridescent}}, I think the problem is that it's open to gaming. Any spammer can list their article for ARS to "rescue" and have a squad of obsessive inclusionists mob an AfD to protect what is in the end often advertorial. I am also extremely disappointed in the quality of sources that are sometimes being added: the result of ARS efforts are often to provide superficial referenciness that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny when you're familiar with ].
	::As currently constituted, ARS gives an extremely strong impression of believing that nomination for deletion is ''prima facie'' evidence that the article should be kept. And that contributes to the drama. If they want the drama to stop, they could show signs of being less inclined to go to bat for obvious spam. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 10:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::* Hundreds of articles are nominated for deletion every day by multiple processes including speedy deletion, prods and AfD. The ARS gets involved in very few of these -- only about 1 article per day, I reckon. It would be good if the articles nominated for rescue were those with the most promise but there's a chicken-and-egg problem with this – you often can't tell how promising a topic is until you've done a fair bit of work on it. Consider a topic like ], for example – my most recent nomination. I had a quick browse for sources and my intuition was that the topic had promise. But it's an American topic, while I'm British, so I listed it for rescue in the hope that American editors would pick it up. This seems to be working out reasonably well. In other cases, a comparatively no-hope topic will be listed in desperation, hoping that the ARS can perform some magic to save it. I usually ignore these myself as I have better things to do. But you really can't tell till you try and I am often surprised what a thorough search for sources will turn up.
	::: Anyway, if Guy or others think they can do better then they are welcome to try. The ARS has hundreds of nominal members but few of them show up up to do anything at all. The real problem with AfD and related activity such as AfC is that they are dying for lack of attention and effort. The bickering doesn't help. ]🐉(]) 12:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{u|Andrew Davidson}}, I am happy for AfD to run its course, I don't see a need for a flying squad of militant inclusionists to rescue articles based on zero selectivity. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Hi, I spend a lot of time in AfDs and in article rescue, Here is my . ] (]) 17:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::* That's been my observation as well, ]. What I would love to do is be able to ''trust'' the work of ARS regulars, but I can't: just in the last week, I've seen a myriad of "Hah! You lazy bastard, you didn't follow BEFORE, here are several sources!" that turn out to all be namedrops and casual mentions ... when they reference the subject at ''all.'' See enough of them, and you just can't help but feel that the editors who resort to that are acting in deliberate bad faith, hoping that no one actually examines the evidence. Beyond that, a couple have made clear their belief that the entire deletion process is illegitimate and that notability guidelines are optional at best. As may be, but sorry, this is the encyclopedia you've got. ] 22:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::* Ravenswing is the editor who that ] be deleted without any discussion or examination of the evidence. That's not working out well for them ... ]🐉(]) 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::* (scratches his head) That's not working out well for ''me''? Since when was this a competition? I did my research, I found no sigcov (using Burry's as a search term instead of "Burry," which other editors seem to have done), and other editors made the save. This is a win all around. But if you insist on keeping score, according to AfDstats, a full ''forty percent'' of your votes at AfD go against the consensus result. (I've got a 93% match rate, by contrast.) Sounds like you could stand to better familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages standards, and ]. ] 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::] Apparently you do not accept that whether (or not) there was sigcov is a judgment call. Indeed, going back into the history of 137 year company (well before the internet) has its own unique set of problems. The subject matter an intrinsic relationship with the ability to find ]. To be sure, these can lead to ] disputes on that issue. And ]. That you think that a statement that you got it wrong ] is a "personal attack" {{mdash}} and not a defense to an AFD {{mdash}} suggests you need to reevaluate your perspective. To be sure, this is about improving the encyclopedia, and we ought to recognize that goal in everything we do. But silencing those who have a different analysis and conclusion is, IMO, bad policy. See you next time, I am sure. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 17:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::: That "I think a statement that I got it wrong is a personal attack" is entirely in your own head, not in mine: obviously I did, in that AfD. That I'm somehow "silencing" those who disagree with me is also entirely in your own head: if I somehow have supernatural control over what you and your cronies type, I'm sure mucking ''that'' up. I've nominated several hundred articles for deletion at AfD, and even with a match rate around 94% on that, 6% failure means I've gotten some of those wrong, or that I'm simply outvoted. This has happened before, and it'll happen again. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus. I'm comfortable with that. Perhaps you're not. (Sorry that the argument you were wanting me to make wasn't the actual one I was making, but eh.) ] 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
	*A suggestion that would forestall any claims of not following instructions to perform searches for sources before nominating articles for deletion would be to link to such searches and comment on the results in deletion nominations. I don't see what would be so difficult about that, as it only involves copying and pasting a few URLs that the nominator would have to hand anyway. ] (]) 18:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
	::That would become ridiculous and time prohibitive with anything that has more then a few search results. AfDs aren't about Google hits anyway. It's also worth mentioning that doing a search for a term in the Google search bar will sometimes give complete different results then if you search for something by clicking on the search links in AfDs. I've had it happen a few times myself with Google Scholar. I think search results can be different depending on the users location and their prior search history also. It's not the job of the nominator to provide sources showing why the article should be kept anyway. That's on the "voters." It's not like the same personal attacks wouldn't occur if nominators did what your suggesting anyway though, because it's just a tactic that isn't based on anything already anyway. --] (]) 07:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Needless to say, asking people to ] is unreasonable. ] <sub>]</sub> 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::I didn't propose that anyone should prove anything, just that they should say what they have done so the discussion can be a consensus-seeking exercise rather than a battleground. ] (]) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::How is it time prohibitive when it just needs the nominator to say what they have done, which we are asked to believe is to follow the ]? The time-consuming bit is following the instructions, which I am sure every deletion nominator already does, not saying how they have been followed. ] (]) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::It’s AfD that is the fertile battlefield not just ARS, and this idea is worth implementing in some way. It would help confirm that the Nom did indeed follow Before, then if a pattern of bad noms surfaced maybe they would get coached in more successfully adhering to Before. ] (]) 16:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Saying what was done in general terms might not be too time-consuming, but logging every step can be tedious. I've searched archives via my local library web site and while of course I can write all of the details down regarding archive names and search criteria, it is definitely additional overhead. ] (]) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{nonadmin}} Whoa, there, cowboy. You lost me with “fertile battleground”. We have policies for that. ] (]) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::This section’s first sentence tries to lay the battlefield mentality at ARS’ door when AfD itself is a contentious area filled with strong opinions. Anything that might make the process more smooth is likely worth consideration. ] (]) 22:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Like Isaacl said it would be time consuming because saying what steps the nominator took is tedious and nothing is good enough for the ARS people anyway. Even if you say you did a before they attack you for not doing a before. You say you did a before that involved a Google search and a Google scholar search, and you point out specific sources that you found and they still attack you. That's what they do. The nominators shouldn't have to bend over backwards by saying what they did just to be treated with a little decency. There should always be a presumption of good faith that the nominator did their due diligence. If someone isn't willing to grant them it, then that's on them. Just like it's on the people who call nominators sexist for doing an AfD about a women or a racist for doing about a person of color, etc etc. We shouldn't do anything to bend over backwards to accommodate the ARS people's cynicism anymore then we should do it for those people. It wouldn't matter if we did anyway though. We'll still be accused of things. So screw that. --] (]) 02:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{Outdent|::::::::}}You ask for their good faith while simultaneously accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith.{{pb}}I think a simple step somewhere in the process confirming Before was done is needed, especially with some editors who seem to struggle with identifying sources that others point out. Then the issue becomes helping serial misusers of the process in finding sourcing rather than being frustrated by process. ] (]) 04:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:I'm not accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith. I'm accusing the ones that have acted in bad faith of doing so. Which is who this discussion is about. This discussion is not and never has been about every person that has ever had anything to do with the group, no matter how minor their role in it is. Everyone here knows who the bad actors are. I'm not going to list all of them every time I want to say "ARS." so some random member, who isn't a part of this discussion or at fault, won't feel like I'm talking about them. Thanks though.
	:Anyway, more importantly there's zero way to "confirm" a nominator has done a BEFORE. Except for the nominator to say they did one. Which, as I've said before, they are already doing and no one from ARS is ever satisfied with. So, making it obligatory for us to say we did a BEFORE isn't going to deal with this. having consequences for badgering users like Andrew will resolve it though. Things have calmed down quit a lot already since this incident report was opened. Whereas, there's tons of AfDs where Andrew and his cohorts (obviously I'm not talking about every damn member of ARS)have accused nominators of not doing a BEFORE when they explicitly said that they did one. BTW, their the only ones that ever bring up a BEFORE or accuse nominators of not doing one. It's a non-starter IMO to make a policy about something just because three users have a chronic personal problem with it. Instead we should deal with the three users who have the personal problem. Seriously. --] (]) 06:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::+1. It's not about AFD and it's not about ARS, it's just about a few editors. <sup>]</sup>]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: +1. Yeah, there's a bad actor or two whose accusations of bad faith are ''chronic,'' who are plainly operating off from an agenda that the whole deletion process is illegitimate, and for whom it seems that any tactic, stunt or reversal of tack in its service is justified. (Except, of course, gaining general consensus for their extremist philosophy.) ] 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: +1, particularly per {{u|Levivich}}. This is not a systemic issue with either AfD or ARS, in my view. It's a specific issue with a few AfD regulars. ] (]) 15:02, 12 August 2020 (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.)
	*'''Update''' As an update, note that ], which was highlighted as an example above, has now been closed as '''Keep'''. The subject is a maker of biscuits, especially Girl Scout Cookies. The topic was listed for rescue and got good attention. For an independent view of the topic, I suggest consulting ] who contributed good comments and article updates during the AfD. As it happens, this is the same Eddie891 that is currently to be found at RfA.
			* 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.
	:My own view is that this example demonstrates the value of prod patrol and article rescue. If I had not intervened, this topic would probably have been deleted without discussion. ]🐉(]) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			* 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.)
	::And yet that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse any of the problems raised in this thread. That you think the AFD's outcome is relevant ''is the problem itself''. ]]] 03:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			* 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.)
	:::] was cited as an example because it was my most recent nomination and, at the time, unsettled. It was relevant then and it is relevant now that the AfD has now been closed and we can see the outcome. It is also topical in that one of the main participants is now at ]. The claim that Burry's is "completely irrelevant" seems to be completely false.
			* 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.
	:::My most recent nomination for rescue is now ]. This topic is the second in an attempt to innovate. It occurred to me that topics in the news often need timely improvement because they are getting lots of attention by our readers but often need citations to help them through the formalities at ]. This hasn't achieved much because the real problem with the ARS is that few members do anything. While ''Eating Out to Help Out'' recently I saw a sign. It's an old chestnut but seems relevant still: {{quote|'''That's Not My Job!'''<br>This is story about four people named: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.<br>There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.<br>Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did.<br> Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.<br>Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn't do it.<br>It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.}}
			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)
	:::]🐉(]) 07:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I think it’s fair that the issue is the longstanding tension between deletionists and inclusionists, and that AfD is a relatively easy system to game.{{pb}}ARS looks to be the only real watchdog that looks for systematic corruption of the process. And it’s truly thankless work.{{pb}}Unfortunately the burden is to prove someone is abusing the deletion process which seems at best to be an uphill battle. Maybe someone can think of a way to help ensure that AfD isn’t abused, I’m not so sure. ] (]) 07:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::No. There are no deletionist. There are no inclusionists. Nobody needs a watchdog. We need people to work on articles and we need people to evaluate notability at AFD, but that is not "work" (thankless, necessary, or otherwise), it is a hobby, and no articles require "saving" because nobody is attacking articles. This whole viewpoint is just in the heads of a few ARS members who perceive themselves as ]. Well, ]. ]]] 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I sharply disagree with that assertion. An easy look at the list of AfDs at ARS suggest there are articles on notable subjects that editors have been attempting to delete, for whatever reasons. If there are serial deletions I have no idea. But it’s hard to argue that no watchdog is needed when it’s obvious ARS is doing at least some good work on article building. ] (]) 19:02, 13 August 2020 (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)
	:::::Levivich, that is patently untrue. There are clear deletionists on Misplaced Pages. It is also a fact (particularly in recent years with AfDs being automated via Twinkle) that most articles get AfDed without the nominator having done any ]; they generally have only glanced at the existing citations in the article's current iteration. It is also a fact that cogent and thoughtful participation (checking carefully and thoroughly and at length for coverage) at AfD has lagged way behind the speed and ease with which the glut of articles are AfDed. Articles are not rescued from "attack" (your word); they are rescued from deletion. {{U|Cullen328}} for instance, is a world-class article rescuer. ] (]) 06:09, 14 August 2020 (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 am not sure that I am a "world-class article rescuer", {{u|Softlavender}}, although I take some pride in improving and thereby saving articles listed at AfD. If I had more time and stronger motivation, I am sure I could have saved many more. Thanks anyway for mentioning my work in that area. ] ] 07:17, 14 August 2020 (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 ===
	== Issue at ] ==
			I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. ] (]/]) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've got some experience of ] investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. ] (]) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'd appreciate help or advice on an issue at {{Pagelinks|China–United States trade war}}. The main problem is that a few times now, {{Userlinks|Flaughtin}} has disappeared from the article and the talk page discussion for 1–4 weeks, and then has come back and reverted most or all of the updates and corrections that have been made in the meantime . I've asked the user to discuss these reverts on the talk page, but {{GENDER:Flaughtin|he refuses|she refuses|they refuse}}. On ] you'll find discussion of several other disputes, but when I asked the user to discuss these reverts, {{GENDER:Flaughtin|he|she|they}} said "I have my reasons for reverting your content, but the explanation will have to wait until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of edits", "You'll just have to wait for me to tell you why", and "You'll have to wait for my explanation". I , and Flaughtin still hasn't provided one. This seems to be a case of ].
			::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/] in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --] (]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —] (]) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
			::::::::To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @] has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. ] (]) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the ]. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. ] (]) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks ] (]) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? ]] 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
			{{U|voorts}} - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. ] (]) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. ''Sound of evil laughter.'') --] (]) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How's this draft proposal: {{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace<ins>, converting redirects to articles,</ins> or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.
			::Having seen on ] yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.
			::And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. ]] 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. ] (]/]) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. ] (]) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - ] (]) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: an infobox? a few words about local authority area? a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. ]] 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to ], never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. ]] 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Thanks for the question ]. To clarify, I meant '''any''' expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing ''anywhere'' on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - ] (]) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " ]] 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --] (]) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Okay, looks good. @] what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::{{U|Cremastra}} - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. ] (]) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Hold on. This goes much further than @] wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? ] (]) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at ]. I've lost patience. ]] 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
			:::::::::::::# No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
			:::::::::::::# No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
			:::::::::::::# No editing in mainspace.
			:::::::::::::]] 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.{{pb}}{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):{{pb}}
			::'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
			::'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.
			::'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.
			:{{pb}}The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but '''would personally favour Option B'''. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into ], a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. ] (]) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]: I made some changes. ] (]/]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. ] (]) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::p.s. ] this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. ] (]) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? ] (]) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. ] (]) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree. ] (]) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] and @]: option C amended below. ] (]/]) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? ]] 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. ] (]/]) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s) ===
	It's impossible to keep developing this article when all the additions and corrections will just get reverted in a couple of weeks by an editor who refuses to discuss the reasons for the reverts. I'm not sure whether ANI is the best venue for this issue, but I'd appreciate help or guidance on how to deal with this situation. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 19:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{cot|Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus.}}
	:The admins should shut this request down with prejudice. I can't be refusing to provide explanation for my edits when I have already said I would provide an explanation for them - it's just they will have to wait given the preceeding and proceeding mass purges/battleground edits the other user has made. It really isn't my problem that he/she wants to (or feels entitled to) jump the line and it really isn't my problem either that he/she doesn't read either carefully or at all - that isn't meant to be an insult, it is just meant to be a statement of fact as the debates on the talk page demonstrates. The rounds of debates has to be resolved sequentially, partly because of, again, the problematic edits the other user has made (the mass purges as I have already pointed out), partly for reasons of clarity (there are too many points of contentions to be resolved), and partly for reasons of fairness (this is self explanatory); to do it any other way would make it impossible to keep track of the sheer number of disputes which have to be resolved. The issue of my editing pattern is something that I have ; that said, I will going forward do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Misplaced Pages.
			{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):
	:For the record admins should note the irony of this request and how it's (or seems to be anyway) a classic example of an aggressor playing the victim card - this whole debate all started with this mass purge of my edits by the opposing editor . I could have disregarded his/her edit summary (just like how he/she has disregarded my explanations for the reversion of his/her edits) and taken the issue straight to this noticeboard but I didn't given the confidence I had in my edits and suppporting arguments. The debates on the talk page were and still are moving in the right direction, most of the points of contention have been or are being resolved and majority of them are being resolved on my terms - i suspect that ''that'' is real reason why this ANI was brought up in the first place. At this point, the best solution would be if an admin could directly intervene in the debates on the talk page (mainly to prevent a request like this from happening again by expediting the dispute resolution process) or barring that, then do nothing and just let the debate run its natural course. ] (]) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I do make an effort to read carefully, and that's why, for example, I object to claims like that don't match the sources they cite. But back to the issue at hand—I note that Flaughtin ''still'' has not offered any justification or explanation for the reverts linked above. Flaughtin's insistence on discussing disputes "sequentially" with weeks of delays (and periodically reverting any new changes to the article) has the effect of making it impossible to make progress on the article. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 01:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Without having looked at the actual material - if you revert, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons. If you don't have the time to do that, don't revert. No one can hold another editor hostage to their whims because explaining their actions doesn't fit their schedule right now. If that's what is going on here, it should stop. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 02:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Thanks, ], that's a good summary of what's going on. The editor is discussing other disputes on the talk page, but refuses to discuss the reverts linked above. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 02:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{od}}
	::]: As I have made clear in my comments above and many times to the other editor elsewhere I am prepared to explain my reverts - the real problem is that editor's sense of entitlement; specifically, the arrogance on his/her part to not just demand that I respond on his/her terms while he/she mass reverts my edits, but to be completely ignorant of the hypocrisy of the demand. He/she demands my immediate and unceasing attention to my reversion of his/her edits; meanwhile I'm supposed to just pretend that his/her never happened. I can understand if an animal accepted those kind of demands, but what kind of self-respecting person would do that? As I've said, going forward, I will do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Misplaced Pages.
			:'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
	::]: Well no no you don't read the things I write carefully (or at all) and your arguments on the talk page demonstrates this. For every example that you can find where I haven't carefully read your edits, I can find ten examples where you haven't carefully read my edits. If you want to talk about problematic conduct, then of course it's best if we began with which is what started this whole debate. I've been more than patient with you and assuming of good faith given your initial mass reverts of my contributions to that article and for you to try to play the victim-card here on this noticeboard and rehash your demand that I respond on your terms when you took the initiative to mass revert my edits rests on a kind of arrogance (i.e. arrogance of ignorance) that really, really just scrapes the bottom of the gutter. If you did that with any other editor, your (multiple) mass reverts would have been reverted mercilessly already and you would have ended up at WP:3RR ages ago. I have already said that I will do my best to respond in a more punctual manner and if you are not going/refuse to take my word for it, then that is your problem, not mine. ] (]) 08:51, 4 August 2020 (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)
	:::Your life may not revolve around Misplaced Pages, but likewise Misplaced Pages doesn't wait on you. As Elmidae said, {{tq|if you revert, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons. If you don't have the time to do that, don't revert.}} Your edit doesn't need to stay up; you can take the time to discuss this on the talk page. — ''''']''''' 10:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
			==== Uninvolved editors ====
	:::Flaughtin is acting as though I wronged them somehow by reverting some of their edits in June. But I followed ], and when Flaughtin raised 26 separate points on the talk page, I took the time to respond to each and every one. In contrast, Flaughtin still has not explained the reverts linked above, even though it has been a month and a half since I first asked for an explanation. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 14:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose all'''. I would have voted '''Option B''', but the user demonstated enough maturity and self-criticism, meaning he's willing to improve his long-term contribution. Moreover, even if it could have been embarrassing to admit, he also cared enough to inform us he's on the ], and as a ] myself, I know that's hard. My two cents go to {{u|DragonofBatley}}. You're welcome! ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::] Taking the disputes to the talk page is what I have been doing all along. As for the time issue, as I've said (4 times now), going forward, I will do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Misplaced Pages. This is the most reasonable response that I can give and I really don't know how many more times I need to say this.
	::::] You didn't just make "some reverts", you made a mass revert. Please don't act like there isn't a difference between the two. ] (]) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Flaughtin is discussing some other disputes on the talk page, which is good. It would be better if they could be more civil and stop accusing me of not reading their comments. Now they're also trying to a 3O request that I opened about these earlier disputes.
	:::::Regardless, they still haven't explained the reverts linked above. Given that, I think I would be justified in undoing the reverts, but given that the user hasn't acknowledged or resolved this conduct issue, I worry they might just revert again. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 22:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Once again, the user has , but still refuses to discuss these reverts, so I've restored the updates and corrections. If Flaughtin objects, I hope they will discuss the issue on the talk page the way they have with earlier disputes. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::I have reverted the above user's revert and explained my action on the talk page accordingly. ] (]) 00:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::Flaughtin still refuses to discuss these reverts, saying {{tquote|I will address my revert of your edits until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of my edits that you did here. We are going to (as a matter of chronological fact) do this sequentially and I will not let you jump the line just because you feel you are entitled to do so. As I am the author of the second round of edits which you purged, the responsibility per BRD falls on me to initiate the second round of debate, which I will start at the conclusion of this first round of debate (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate).}} They are insisting we resolve all the other disputes about this article before they will discuss their reverts of most of the updates made during their weeks of absence. Also, after I their goalpost-shifting regarding one of the other disputes, they said {{tquote|this really is a total waste of fucking time.}} Could someone please help deal with this stonewalling and incivility? —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::Well this is a new one. Usually you get people refusing to enter a debate because it is clearly always the other person's responsibility to start discussing on the talkpage, never them. Here we have someone refusing to talk because they feel it is their prerogative to start discussion on ''their'' terms, and they feel justified in reverting without explanation until it pleases them to do so. {{u|Flaughtin}}, in my estimation you are getting onto very thin ice here. ''Stop reverting unless you are willing to fully explain why you do so.'' --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 03:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::It's clear you haven't been reading what I have been saying; if you have then you haven't been reading it carefully. Why do you keep saying that I am refusing to answer what the other user is saying? I have already told you I am going to reply to him/her. It's not about starting a debate on my terms, it's about starting it on the ideal terms. Notwithstanding other reasons, the debate as I have already told you has to proceed sequentially for logistical reasons: there are too many points of contentions to be resolved and many points of contentions to be resolved between the second and third mass reverts overlap. The upshot of this means that resolving the issues in the second mass revert (the other user's revert of my edits) is going to resolve a lot of the issues in the third mass revert (my revert of the other user's edits) anyway. To do it non-sequentially would make it impossible to keep track of the sheer number of disputes which have to be resolved. At massive disruption to my real life situation, I am doing my best to expedite the debate as fast as I can - as we speak, I am in the process of writing up the list of contentions for the second round of debate (which corresponds to the other user's second mass revert of my edits) so that we can move on to the third round of debate as quickly as possible (my revert of the other user's edit which started this ANI request). I said I would respond in a more punctual manner and this is proof that I am following through with it. If this still isn't good enough, then that just isn't my problem because I am already doing everything that I can. If my revert of the other user's edits has to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page, then that user's prior revert of my edits (for which no full explanation was given by the other user) will also have to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page. All or nothing. ] (]) 07:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I just tried again to make sense of the sequence of events in that article's history. You two have been re-re-re-reverting each other for so long that it's become quite opaque to anyone uninvolved. If I were to take a stab at a clean start position, I would say it is whatever Mx. Granger reverted to in this . That appears to be a revert of a substantial change to a previous stable state, and thus the ''status quo'' that a discussion should be based on before any further changes are made. It's a long way back, but after that you two start bitchslapping each other and it becomes very muddled. Can't suggest more than that. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 15:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::{{ping|Elmidae}} We can revert to that version if you think it would help. Unfortunately, it also contains serious errors introduced by Flaughtin (the incorrect statements about GDP) which I didn't notice at the time, but I'm okay with reverting to that version and then using the talk page to move forward from there. The stable version from before the original dispute started is . Maybe the best option would be to revert to that version and then use the talk page to discuss the updates and changes that Flaughtin, other users, and I want to make. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 16:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Part of the reason the history is so muddled is that three times, Flaughtin disappeared for an extended period and then reverted all or most of the edits made by multiple users in the meantime. Another reason is that on the talk page, all of the points of disagreement have been put together in one huge discussion. In the future it might help to use a separate section for each point of disagreement (on the other hand, with so many points of disagreement that might lead to a large number of sections). —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Another option: I am also okay with using the , as edited by Flaughtin, as the basis on which to discuss changes. I'm not that concerned about which of these versions is in place while we discuss. My main concern is that '''discussion actually needs to happen''', about all of the issues under dispute. Right now Flaughtin is still refusing to discuss one of the areas of dispute. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 17:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::{{re|Mx. Granger|Flaughtin}} I was going to say, if you want to try a structured do-over, then you're probably right that the 3 June version is best - before either of you started on the current sequence. It's a lot of work to throw out, but I'm getting the impression that the situation right now is too tangled to resolve gracefully, and a ] solution may be cleanest. - But if you are happy with the current version as a basis, then I'd say it comes down to "reasonable time frames". On the one hand, ] - it's not an issue if a discussion doens't happen ''immediately''; the article will keep, and the only problem would be if the current version is so misleading that it can't stand for some days. Apparently not the case. On the other hand, no editor can unilaterally freeze an article for an unreasonable time while they play by their preferred schedule. How about you two try to agree on a timeframe within which Flaughtin should make his comments, and if this blows by, the excuse of "I will justify myself in due time" is officially void? That kind of agreement could also get admin enforcement, I would think. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 17:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I think that's a workable idea. I'm not exactly ''happy'' with the current version, but I think the major problems with it are limited enough that they can be resolved through discussion fairly efficiently.
	::::::::::::::<s>I would suggest that in general Flaughtin should respond within 24 hours. (This is the standard I usually hold myself to, in discussions where someone is waiting for my response.) And now and then, if Flaughtin is unusually busy once in a while, I don't mind for them to say so on the talk page and then take an extra day or two. What I find difficult to deal with is getting no response for days and days and then seeing all the edits made in the meantime get reverted.</s>
	::::::::::::::Importantly, it's not enough to respond regarding some issues but not others. One of the main problems here is that Flaughtin has been responding regarding earlier disputes but isn't discussing the more recent dispute. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::{{ping|Elmidae}} Rereading your comment, I realize I may have misunderstood. Did you mean to agree on a timeframe to respond to new comments on the talk page going forward, or a timeframe for when Flaughtin will start discussing the recent dispute? —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}{{ping|Mx. Granger}} I was thinking of the latter, as I understood that was the main issue (reverting but saying "I have good reasons but no time to explain them, will happen in the indeterminate future"). Regarding responding to fresh comments, I think one can't hold people to firm timelines there; if life keeps you away from WP, then that's it. I don't believe you could reasonably hold someone to a once-per-day log-in requirement. The usual way this is handled, e.g. here at AN/I, is that if there is an outstanding issue that requires response, an editor is expected to deal with it when and if they ''do'' log into WP. Meaning that if they log in and then spend all their time on other wikitasks while ignoring the request for comment (but still expect others to wait on them), that constitutes active stonewalling and is disruptive. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Thanks, that's fair enough. I suppose if there's another long absence with unresolved discussions I'll seek input on what to do.
	:As for a timeline—it's now been seven weeks since I first asked Flaughtin to explain their revert, and they have edited many times in the meantime, so I think a response is long overdue. I would suggest that they respond by the end of 8 August UTC (i.e., a little over two days from now). Is that feasible? —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 20:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	:I also want to suggest that we start a new section on the talk page to discuss the reverts. I've been trying to discuss them in the same section as the other disputes, but I now think that's likely to make the discussion more confusing, as the reverts don't seem to involve any of the same text as the other remaining disputes. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Yeah, that's a lot of delay - more than one could reasonably expect others to put up with. If you want to be part of the development of an article, there's a certain expectation that you cooperate within time limits that do not leave everyone else hanging for months; it's not codified but I don't believe anyone can be expected to put up with recurrent multi-week gaps in an ongoing issue. If you don't have the time to work with others at a reasonable pace, you shouldn't stick your oar in to such an extent. Let's see what they say when they next tune in. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 20:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|Elmidae}} ] has responded regarding other disputes but still refuses to discuss the reverts or to give their opinion on the way forward suggested above. See (third paragraph). —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 02:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::And . Meanwhile, the lead still has two incorrect statements about manufacturing, the timeline has no updates from this May or June, and Flaughtin has given no explanation of why they keep reverting the fixes and updates. Are these unexplained reverts and stonewalling enough merit a block? If not, what can be done about this pattern of repeatedly reverting and refusing to explain or discuss the issue? —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 11:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::: as a way to wrap up the (outstanding issues from the) first round of debate so that the second (and by extension third) round of debate can proceed. I had that I would initiate the second round of debate until after the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate was resolved; I am now modifying my position so that I will initiate the second round of debate by the end of tomorrow ''regardless'' of whether that 3O request has been resolved. As I have said I am expediting the debate to the best of my ability and this is proof of it. As for the recycled complaints about my problematic conduct, editors should note the by the opposing editor as well as my . ] (]) 05:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::: Not having read anything about this displute beyond the two last diffs posted by {{u|Flaughtin}}: that is not a provocation. It was inappropriate of you to strike comments that were not yours without permission, and Mx. Granger's response was totally appropriate. Your response in edit summary, on the other hand, strikes me as inappropriate and provocative. I suggest that you apologize for tampering with other people's comments (something Mx. Granger carefully avoided, leaving your comments in exactly the same state before and after their edit). --] (]) 13:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::: Gah, this is really not getting any easier. If this third opinion request doesn't lead to a breakthrough, I would really suggest setting the article back to a point prior to the disputed edits altogether (as discussed above) - that appears to be something that both editors could agree on, although not happily. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 16:51, 10 August 2020 (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)
	There are some very serious behavioral issues at work here. I recently began editing this article, and had never interacted with {{u|Flaughtin}} before. I asked on the talk page if there was a source for a particular claim made in the article. Flaughtin resonded that it was being addressed in one of their "rounds of debate" above, which are massive walls of text with dozens of itemized arguments (take a look ). I responded that these "rounds of debate" are completely opaque to me, and that absent a source, I was removing the unsourced claim. Flaughtin then reverted me and accused me of refusing to read. Instead of just citing a source, Flaughtin is demanding that I wade through massive walls of text, the "rounds of debate." The whole thread is .
			==== Involved editors ====
	The problem here is that Flaughtin is ]. Anyone who wants to edit it has to engage with Flaughtin in their "rounds of debate." Anyone who wants to know what the source for a particular claim is is directed to these massive "rounds of debate." Anyone who wants to restructure a subsection is informed that they must first take part in the "rounds of debate." I've never seen anything like this on Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I've responded to the editor . For the record that editor is welcomed to participate in the above debates and if it is a procedural misunderstanding on my part that reversions can't be made by uninvolved third parties when the debate is taking place between the original interlocutors (this is my reading of ]) then corrective input would also be welcomed. Barring any clear up of my procedural misunderstanding, then I that that editor should not be allowed to jump the line after the hours of input that I have put into the article/talk page debates. ] (]) 12:07, 11 August 2020 (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)
	::Flaughtin's demand that I not be {{tq|"allowed to jump the line"}} is precisely the ] issue I'm talking about. Flaughtin is engaged in wide-ranging "rounds of debate," each round covering dozens of different issues, and believes that anyone who wants to edit the article must first participate in these "rounds of debate." Anyone who doesn't first come to Flaughtin for permission to edit is {{tq|"jump the line"}}. Even if I just want a simple answer to a simple question ("What's the source for X?"), I'm directed by Flaughtin to the "rounds of debate." I don't think this user understands how talk pages are normally used, or that they don't have the right to demand that every edit be submitted for their prior approval. -] (]) 12:33, 11 August 2020 (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)
	:::Well no no that is a total misrepresentation of what's going on, aided in no small part by your ] . I'm saying you can't jump the line on things which are already being debated and an important reason is logistical: it's going to be impossible to keep track of the developments, particularly in a situation like this where there is a sheer number of ''other'' and in many cases overlapping points of contention which have to be resolved. I don't care about the other things which are outside of that - those can be adjudicated on its own merits. Now as I said, if this is a procedural misunderstanding on my part that reversions can't be made by uninvolved third parties when the debate is taking place between the original interlocutors (this is my reading of ]) then corrective input would also be welcomed. But of course, that is not a job for you as you aren't an administrator. ] (]) 13:07, 11 August 2020 (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)
	:::Editors should note that I have per that user's unreasonable demands. (. But as above, if there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then then corrective input would be welcomed.) ] (]) 13:25, 11 August 2020 (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)
	{{od}}
			*: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)
	Administrators should note per that ] is now edit warring over the material even though we are engaged in a concurrent ] on the talk page. I recommend that sanctions be imposed against the opposing user in question. ] (]) 13:32, 11 August 2020 (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)
	:I've reverted once, after discussing my position on the talk page. You've carried out numerous reverts in the same time period (just a small sample of your recent reverts: ). Pot, meet kettle. -] (]) 14:04, 11 August 2020 (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)
	::Sigh. What a mess. I'm happy to try ]'s suggestion of going back to the pre-dispute stable version, though I'm not sure that will resolve ]'s behavioral issues. To borrow ]'s description, "holding the article hostage" is a fairly apt description of what Flaughtin has been doing with unexplained reverts for the past several weeks.
			*::::@] 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)
	::Either way, I suggest that we abandon the great big section covering dozens of topics that Flaughtin divided into "rounds of debate". Let's have a separate section for each unresolved issue. Hopefully that will keep discussion organized enough for other editors to follow what's going on and weigh in. (I think ''most'' of the issues in the huge section have already been resolved, though I haven't yet had time to read Flaughtin's latest post in that section—I'll do that in a few minutes.) —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 15:43, 11 August 2020 (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)
	::In the absence of administrative action, I have in line with BRD reverted the edit warring revert in question so that material is back to its . ( is the opposing user's version of the material while is my version of the material) To recapitulate: the opposing user unilaterally decided to reinstate his/her disputed version of the material while we were in the middle of a concurrent ] on the talk page. This is in total violation of all sorts of editing policies and guidelines (e.g. BRD and AGF) I have informed that user on the talk page of my revert and also warned him or her that I will be filing an request for administrative action if the user does something like that again. If there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed, but I am confident given the circumstances that my revert and warning is the right thing to do. ] (]) 19:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			*:::::::Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. ] (]) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I have some of the content in my version of the material per my explanation on the talk page . If there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed. ] (]) 06:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{cob}}
	:::: No part of BRD endorses reverting a revert. It is not possible for "you were edit-warring so I reverted you" to be true without "I was edit-warring" being true. You should change your approach. --] (]) 11:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			==== Discussion ====
	:::::] Well I have a different view with regards to your characterization of what I did - I didn't see it as a revert as I was per the corresponding explanation on the talk page reinstating material which wasn't explicitly in dispute there; my edit would only have been a revert if it had included the disputed material. And to be clear I don't see a contradiction between those two statements as they are undrstood in the objective. Reverting disruptive edits don't count as edit-warring so I wouldn't agree, by way of example, that a reversion of the unilateral revert by the opposing user so that the material went back to its original version would be considered edit warring (The key here being that the material is reverted back to the original - and not my - version. Of course you can say thgat the original version is itself disputed but that technicality is practically meaningless - at the end of the day you need a version of the material to actually be in the article while the disputes are being resolved on the talk). But having said, I will going forward refrain from adding ''anything'' from my version of material without prior consensus on the talk page. ] (]) 15:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			* I think I would be happier if:
	:::::: Here is what you wrote: {{tq|I have in line with BRD reverted the edit warring revert}}. So maybe you want to rethink this response? Then you can give apologies all around for edit-warring, for asking for corrective input and then Wikilawyering in response, etc. --] (]) 18:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			# 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).
	:::::::No really I don't know what there is to rethink because I am genuinely confused. This isn't me trying to get cute and be a wiseass. As I understand it, reverts of disruptive edits don't count as edit warring - and what I reverted was clearly a case of disruptive editing (the opposing user unilaterally decided to reinstate his/her disputed version of the material while we were in the middle of a concurrent ] on the talk page.) I made the mistake of reintroducing material from my version of material which the opposing editor disputed - this is a kind of mistake that that won't happen again. If there is something wrong in the way I'm thinking about this, then I am open to the comments. As I said I've been saying all along if there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed. I'm not out here to prove a point and it's not like I have one to prove anyway. ] (]) 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			# 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)
	::::::::{{u|Flaughtin}}, please read ]. That section lists the only exempted reverts. "Disruptive editing" is not one of those exemptions. ]&nbsp;] 19:09, 12 August 2020 (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)
	:::::::::Thanks for that piece of information as I didn't know about it. That said, there's still something I need clarification on. Was the unilateral revert by that editor vandalism? To me that's what it definitely looked like. But whichever the way the response goes, I will make a note of this exchange for future reference.] (]) 19:39, 12 August 2020 (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)
	::::::::::You're welcome. I think it's safe to say it was ''not'' vandalism. It's a content dispute. A unilateral revert during discussion is poor form and uncollegial and not recommended, but it is not vandalism. ]&nbsp;] 19:41, 12 August 2020 (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)
	:::::::::::] So...what am I supposed to do if something like that (the unilateral revert) happens again? Am I supposed to bring the complaint here, the ] or how is the response supposed to work? Because it doesn't make much sense to me if the solution is going to be just sit back, pretend like the revert never happeened and do nothing - that would just disruptive editors a free hand to do whatever the hell they want to do. ] (]) 06:06, 13 August 2020 (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>
	::::::::::::{{u|Flaughtin}}, the steps you can take are at explained at ]. Also, take a look at ]. I was only pointing out your misunderstanding of the types of reverts that are exempt from edit warring. ]&nbsp;] 06:49, 13 August 2020 (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.
	:::::::::::: You are supposed to ''act like a grown-up'' and continue appropriate discussions on the talk-page, or appropriate DR. If you are correct about what the eventual outcome should be, that will be borne out by discussion. Acting disruptively yourself is not part of that process. —] (]) 10:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.
			:I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community ''consensus'' to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.
			:I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --] (]) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – ] and ] also apply here. --] (]) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{re|Tryptofish}} I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the ]. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance).{{snd}}] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --] (]) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::@] He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. ]] 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. ] (]) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			**That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. ] (]) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@], I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. ] (]) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too ] for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. ] (]) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. ] (]) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but ]. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case.
			:::::The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with ''structure'' while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe ''structure'' to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --] (]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I ] KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. ] (]/]) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in.
			:::::::I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time?
			:::::::They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them.
			:::::::Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors.
			:::::::TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. ] (]) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@] {{tqq| list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed}} there's ]. ] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::@] Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @] - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! ] (]) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. ] (]) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles ==
	===Proposal===
	Flaughtin is to be ] from the article (Talk page access retained), until they can demonstrate a better understanding of when to use (and not use) reversions. The above ]ing either indicates a lack of understanding, or a desire to game the rules. Whichever it is, this needs to stop. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:As I have said and as I have also already been saying (many times already), if there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed. I have no interest in gaming the system and have no idea how you came to that conclusion. ] (]) 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			] keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on ], however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.
	== Hounding ==
	*Editor interaction:
	*{{userlinks|Grufo}}
	*{{userlinks|Vice regent}}
	-] (]) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
			Diffs:
	In late July, I had a content dispute with {{u|Grufo}} at ]. During that dispute the user , employed a negative tone, accused those disgreeing of and also accusing me of sockpuppetry (""). Grufo insisted on interpreting the Qur'an for their self to insert "The ] prescribes either prison or ] or death for those guilty of blasphemy". Grufo defended this by insisting things like "". Ultimately, the user was convinced by three others (including {{u|Eperoton}}) that interpreting the Qur'an themselves was ] and the dispute mainly ended, or so I thought.
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::Citation '''bot''' is an automated process, and not a human. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. ] (]) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You can add this to the page in question – <nowiki>{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}</nowiki> – or you can add this to a specific citation – <nowiki>{{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}}</nowiki> – to keep the bot away. See -- ].]] 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that ] did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on ], see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Citation bot is not a ], but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
			::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348
			::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078
			::"All ] apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
			::-] ] (]) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the ''person'' who is ''using'' the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Most of these seem to have been invoked by {{u|Abductive}}, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? ] (]) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on ]. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee {{rpa}}. Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. ] (]) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493
			:Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
			:These edits were suggested by the following user:
			:*]
			:] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Found another bad date in another article:
			::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by ]
			::Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. ] (]) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Found another bad date in another article:
			:::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)
			:::Suggested by user:
			:::*]
			:::Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates ] (]) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". ] (]) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Because it is not necessarily an error. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It is still about Citation bot. ] (]) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by ]. ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			You have given the operators ] to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? ] (]) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits.]] 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the ]. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —] (]) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that.]] 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
			:::::-]
			:::::] is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It would be best if the bad source was removed, per ] and ]. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes.]] 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Can you quote the part of ] which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. ? ] (]) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —] (]) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about ], not ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about ''your'' use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. ] (]) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] specifically says {{tq|The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. '''In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account.''' Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot}}. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —] (]) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tqq|I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.}} I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to ] to me... - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
			::::::::::::As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —] (]) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>moved down from the middle of the above comment (]). &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			::::::::::::::So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right??]] 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. ] (]) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Unsupervised bot and script use has ]. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix ].... ] (]) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We're into ]. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. ] (]) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{pb}}I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to {{u|Whoop whoop pull up}} two weeks ago () about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed ''me'' to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have ''continued'' to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at {{Section link|User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|Checking IABot runs}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. ''Both'' should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here ''neither''. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.
			:* Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
			:** ] says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, '''whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page'''" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
			:** BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of ]. Now, ROLE ''does'' have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple '''managers'''", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're ''developed and maintained'' by a team of people (rather than ones that can be ''used'' by multiple people).
			:** Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to ''50,000'' pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the ''only'' people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved ''despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible''; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they ''were, in fact, approved'' implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
			:** ] seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
			:** ] says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ''''", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
			:** ] provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
			:* Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
			:** ] says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved ''despite'' the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).
			:] <sup>] 🏳️‍⚧️ ]</sup> 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.
			::"Both should take reponsibility"
			::-] at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 ] (]) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? ] <sup>] 🏳️‍⚧️ ]</sup> 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.
			::::Policy is very clear, '''don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus.''' ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. {{pb}}These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. ] (]) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Or, as ] puts it: {{tq|Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.}} ] (]) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Citation bot has not been {{tqq|approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking}}. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at {{slink|User:Citation bot|Bot approval}}. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.{{pb}}But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.{{pb}}If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. ] (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot.]] 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::☝🏽{{Pb}}It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.{{pb}}I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.{{pb}}Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.{{pb}}Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.{{pb}}I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against {{u|Abductive}} or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion ''somewhere'' specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping {{u|AManWithNoPlan}}, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. ] (]) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots ''and'' checking the results.<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).{{pb}}However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.{{pb}}Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.{{pb}}Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, ] (]) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots"}} Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. ] (]) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			: The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. ] (]) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Since then Grufo has gone around undoing my edits at 11 different articles (]), articles that Grufo seems to have never edited before. This includes restoring unreliable sources,,,,,. It also includes making reverts from past content disputes at ] without engaging in the discussion about that content (Grufo's on the talk page doesn't come close to discussing the ). Grufo's duplicated some content in the lead.
			::Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 ] (]) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Is there anything left here to discuss? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. ] (]) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:: Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says {{code|"datePublished":"2023-02-25T18:46:42+00:00",}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. ] (]) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::: If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::1. Not a news article.
			*:::::2. Intention is irrelevant. These edits are disruptive regardless.
			*:::::3. Maybe program it to not add dates to modified works. ] (]) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools ==
	Grufo's editing is very tenditious, taking a sharply anti-Muslim tone. The user insists on using ], ], and '']'' as reliable sources. Others agree with me that Raymond Ibrahim . Grufo admitted that Darwish was "" but insisted such sources were reliable and "Khomeini, in his subsequent writings, also approved of adults satisfying their sexual lusts with children provided such activities stopped short of any penetration". Grufo repeatedly accuses me and others of trying to "" and "" content.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 14:18, 5 August 2020 (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.
	: {{Reply to|Vice regent}}
	: ''“During that dispute the user repeatedly edit-warred”''
	:: As it has been explained to you, despite you keep ] after ], I am not the one who started an edit war, nor I consider myself at war with anyone.
	: ''“Grufo insisted on interpreting the Qur'an for their self to insert”''
	:: On the contrary, among other things I ] that a subjective minority interpretation of the Quran be used as representative of the article, and I have tried to rely as much as possible only on the secondary sources that are supported by tertiary sources.
	: ''“Ultimately, the user was convinced by three others (including Eperoton) that interpreting the Qur'an themselves was WP:OR”''
	:: I think you lived in a parallel discussion. I did not interpret the Quran (nor I intend to). I did the exact opposite.
	: ''“Since then Grufo has gone around undoing my edits at 11 different articles”''
	:: As ], ] tend to be destructive (in the literal sense of the adjective, meaning that they tend to consist in the removal of sources or entire paragraphs, or in their replacement with apologetic content) and counterproductive, reaching the point of replacing influential interpretations with your personal opinion. For example you have removed the Hanafi school of jurisprudence's position from the page ], despite it is a largely influential school, maybe the largest.
	: ''“Grufo's editing is very tenditious, taking a sharply anti-Muslim tone”''
	:: How can that be? Either I reverted your edits or I added anti-Muslim content. Please do explain it or give an example.
	: ''“Grufo admitted that Darwish was "anti-Islamic" but insisted such sources were reliable”''
	:: I insisted (and I still do) that being critical of Islam or religion in general has nothing to do with being reliable or not as a source as you seem to imply – no more and no less than being Islamic or not caring at all about Islam does. On the other hand, since the only sources you have removed are the openly anti-Islamic ones, I must deduce that you consider being anti-Islamic as a valid motivation for being labeled as unreliable source.
	: ''“The user insists on using Raymond Ibrahim, Nonie Darwish, and The Legacy of Jihad as reliable sources”''
	:: I only restored the sources that have been removed without a valid motivation ''by you''.
	: ''“Grufo repeatedly accuses me and others of trying to "hide" and "silence" content”''
	:: It is literally what you have been trying to do so far, or at least as far as I could check. It looks like you feel invested of some sort of mission on Misplaced Pages. But whatever mission you feel you have, it does not matter as long as your edits are acceptable and not destructive.
			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.
	: --] (]) 16:46, 5 August 2020 (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.
	::: This is the IP who first confronted Grufo. Don't have much to add about the hounding accusation but, as can be seen above this user is rather quick to attack other users' motivations and rather slow in presenting reliable secondary sources that support his stance. In my initial interactions with him on ], he refused to forward any source at all and relied on unsourced interpretations of the Quran (a primary source) ( and onwards) while removing secondary sources (in previous edits ]) and continues to do so with some of his recent edits regarding the Quran. ] (]) 08:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	*{{u|Grufo}} continues to .''']''' <sub>]</sub> 15:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
	Agree with this assessment, Grufo is a civil pov pusher who seems to have issues finding concensus with other users and OR, see ]. ] (]) 15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	: {{Reply to|Hemiauchenia}} I am among the ones who contributed substantially to the current version of the ] article, and the discussion you mentioned (where I made an argument against the removal of the ] from the units) ended in my favor – this does not say anything about the other editors who participated keeping a different position, who are also good Misplaced Pages editors. Thanks to that discussion the Planck charge is now the unit with the highest number of references in the article. But how has that discussion anything to do with what we are talking here about? It's curious that a discussion about me “hounding” other users consists mostly of me being hounded. --] (]) 13:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi {{Diff2|1269543780|replaced}} my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential ] violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to {{Diff2|1269546279|seek clarification}} as to why they did this on their talk page. In {{Diff2|1269548452|their response to me}}, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me {{Diff2|1269576325|this}} message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see {{Diff2|1269577089|this}} edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me {{Diff2|1269580448|this}} message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. {{Diff2|1269580707|This}} edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me.
	* Accusing Grufo of being a "civil pov pusher" seems hypocritical since there appears to be a number of those going around some of these articles. Grufo has tried solving disagreements with discussions, but VR has been quick to report him here and at . This seems a case of reporting someone for having a different POV. ] (]) 13:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::What else do you do when someone makes more than 3 reverts in 24 hours? Note that Grufo was for that episode of edit-warring.
	::{{tq|Grufo has tried solving disagreements with discussions}} Grufo has followed me around on more than 10 articles, and every instance of following around starts with a revert. In almost all cases, it is me who starts the discussion. Once the discussion has started, Grufo sometimes doesn't even both responding in the discussion (see ].) During discussions Grufo makes ] and casts ]. Grufo repeatedly makes it clear that they have a problem with me.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 18:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::: ''“Note that Grufo was warned for that episode of edit-warring.”''
	:::: Sure. I have been warned ''by you'' ({{Diff|User talk:Grufo|969861431|957537270|#1}}, {{Diff|User talk:Grufo|972154687|972146930|#2}}) and {{Diff|User talk:Grufo|972432048|972417600|by another user}} only after ] to present him ''your own warning'' as “this article has attracted edit warring before”
	::: ''“Grufo sometimes doesn't even both responding in the discussion (see Talk:History_of_slavery#Recent_edit.)”''
	:::: If you don't ping me I won't even know that you want to discuss with me (I did not even know that talk paragraph existed). But to be fairly honest I have been quite involved in discussing with you recently.
	::: ''“Grufo repeatedly makes it clear that they have a problem with me”''
	:::: I have absolutely no problems with you. Although, as I already stated above, I do think that – as far as I can see – your edits tend to be destructive, biased, and full of POV-pushing.
	::: --] (]) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*In response to {{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s earlier comment, {{ping|Quondum}} warned Grufo against "" and that Grufo "" others' points. Also {{ping|XOR'easter}} was part of that conversation. I'll let them comment on ].''']''' <sub>]</sub> 17:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	** I would like to remind that we have a rule against ]. --] (]) 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	**Thanks for pinging me. The discussion at ] never reached a consensus; I got tired of trying to make the same points repeatedly while dealing with dismissive remarks, like being told {{tq|Search better ;)}} in response to a request for references. I continue to believe that ] is pretty much ], and since I was the only other active participant in the discussion, the disagreement is technically stuck in the same place it was all along. References show that a quantity called the "Planck charge" can and has been calculated, but not that it should be listed among the "Base Planck units", or even really that a uniquely defined set of such units has been established. Regarding the statement above that {{tq|Thanks to that discussion the Planck charge is now the unit with the highest number of references in the article}}: The citation ] for "Planck charge" is much less impressive than it appears at first glance. For example, the three sources in ] don't actually mention it . One of the footnotes used in the text is to a website that says, basically, "Yes you can calculate this, but it's not clear what good that will do for you" . Another is to ''],'' an unreliable journal run by and for the ] community. Yet another is a brief mention in a 2016 "encyclopedia of distances" that is a compilation of miscellany made by non-physicists. For all we know, they got their list of "base Planck units" from the Misplaced Pages article, which . Yet another merely without saying anything about it being the capstone in an established, coherent set of units, which is the whole point in contention. Still another is to a . I regard these "references" as degrading the quality of the article, but prior experience suggests that trying to have a discussion on the matter would be an exercise in protracted futility. ] (]) 19:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*** {{u|XOR&#39;easter}}, I hope you are well. I do not have the energy to start that discussion again. I know that for some reason you oppose the presence of the Planck charge among Planck units, but that discussion has led to ''me adding many words'' under ''History'' to explain the situation of the Planck charge to meet your point (a little help would have been useful). As for ''Progress in Physics'', you never raised a point, as far as I recall. You complain about my {{tq|Search better ;)}}, but what should I say about the tone of both your and {{u|Quondum}}'s comments (including {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958372146|958328396|the one cited by Vice regent}}, where after presenting several sources in favor of the Planck charge to meet Quondum's request I have been accused by him of “arguing around the point without addressing it”)? I never filled a complaint or answered with the same tone, but it does not mean I was OK with them. By the way, have you understood what we are talking about here and why Vice regent has decided to ping exactly you and Quondum? --] (]) 19:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	**** {{tq|I know that for some reason you oppose the presence of the Planck charge among Planck units}} &mdash; I explained my reason repeatedly, and did so again in my comment just above. (For example, to your reply to {{u|Quondum}}'s comment explained why those sources did not address the key point in contention.) As to why {{U|Vice regent}} notified {{u|Quondum}} and me, I ] it was because they believed that comments from the others involved in a pertinent past discussion would be helpful. ] (]) 20:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	***** {{Reply to|XOR&#39;easter}} ''“I explained my reason repeatedly, and did so again in my comment just above”'': If I had the energy to go back to that discussion I would say that your arguments had rather shifted while discussing (which is not necessarily a bad sign), but one thing had never changed: your opposition against the Planck charge. But I do not have the energy, so I will just say that I believe I had done my best to thoroughly show the opposite perspective, and at the end of the day I tried to include your point of view in the article – important note of civility: all that long discussion happened before any of us even started to intervene on the page, let alone reverting each other's edits. ''“I ] it was because they believed that comments from the others involved in a pertinent past discussion would be helpful”'': There is no pertinent discussion here. A user (Vice regent) has opened a case of ] against me, but this has nothing to do with physics. Vice regent's activity deals mostly with Islam. We have different points of view, and while he thinks I am “hounding” him (unfortunately there is not a ] rule on Misplaced Pages, because this might be ] for it), I simply think that ] tend to be apologetic for some interpretation of Islam and suppress other points of view, sometimes even majority positions. As atheist, I wish instead that no particular interpretation obtains more space than ] would suggest, and I am definitely against suppressing majority views. But as why he has decided to ping exactly you and Quondum, it sounds like ] to me. You might try to get a better answer directly from him. --] (]) 20:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	****** That's an awful lot of vague pondering about the motivations of others. It's a good thing we have the policy ], so that going forward you can stop such comments entirely and focus on the substance of what people say, instead. --] (]) 21:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	****** This thread is about your behavior and that of users you've interacted with. {{u|Hemiauchenia}} pointed to the physics discussion as relevant, because in their view, you were exhibiting the same type of behavior in both cases. {{u|Vice regent}} then asked for input from the others involved in the physics discussion. I see no mystery here. ] (]) 21:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	******* {{Reply to|XOR&#39;easter}} ''“you were exhibiting the same type of behavior in both cases”'': I did have a strange feeling while discussing with you and Quondum, like a sort of hostility from both of you (or your last comment seems to suggest that at least you found my behavior criticizable). That discussion is ]. Admins are more than welcome to dig deep into it. --] (]) 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	***** Since I have been pinged, I'll respond to a point above. Grufo claims "... and the discussion you mentioned (where I made an argument against the removal of the Planck charge from the units) ended in my favor ...". I don't see any agreement or concession to that effect, and this was probably typical of our differences of interpretation, whereas I concur with XOR&#39;easter's perception expressed above. I understand that Grufo has been acting in good faith, but in our past interactions it felt as though the rules of discourse that we function by are completely different. —] 21:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	****** {{Reply to|Quondum}} I like to think that we both conceded something to each other after that discussion, and both our edits of the article afterwards converged towards an inclusive point of view – although I cannot say the same about the discussion, which has been quite polarized indeed, and where I think there have also been {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958372146|958328396|some wrongs}} from your side (not much from {{u|XOR&#39;easter}}'s side, except a general antipathy and stubbornness, all of which are not crimes – and probably I am not much better at those). That dispute though, which was completely focused on the content and where no incidents happened, has hardly anything to do with what we are talking about here, or with your ping in this discussion, which looks still mysterious to me – unless {{u|Vice regent}} explains at last why he felt the need of pinging you both. --] (]) 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Another used already .''']''' <sub>]</sub> 03:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::This thread is unfortunately unclearly framed from the start, including its heading. If behavioural issues of an editor and their impacts are the focus (and this thread suggests that they may be), I would suggest that if any admin is to make sense of it, this thread should be closed and restarted, with care to the heading and to list exactly what is seen to be the problem, with direct behaviours pointed out with diffs. Making insinuations without being clear, for example the link "{{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958372146|958328396|some wrongs}}" above, is unhelpful to an admin. This is ANI: make specific statements backed clearly by diffs, and keep it brief. —] 10:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::: {{Reply to|Quondum}} All I want is not “not being clear”. {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958372146|958328396|This comment of yours}} has been cited by {{u|Vice regent}} as one of the reasons why you have been pinged (or at least so it seems – Vice regent, please do correct me if I am wrong). And exactly that comment in my opinion is rather an argument in my favor than the other way around, since there you were answering to {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958328396|958237039|this comment of mine}}, where I dealt with all the points raised exhaustively and with great patience, and yet your answer was {{tq|Grufo, if you persist in arguing around the point without addressing it, I may formally warn you on your talk page against ] (with specific reference to the section {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point"}}). Further, please read ].}} – which {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958382199|958372146|left me stunned}} (and, by the way, you even cite ], but I never edited the page concerning the Planck charge while we were still discussing about it, and my point was exactly about leaving the page as it was – while the Planck charge has been in the page since 2004). I am sorry you have been involved in this discussion, Quondum, but if a wrong is used against me, without the author acknowledging it and taking distance from it, as I believe it is here the case, I will have to show it on my own. --] (]) 11:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::: {{Reply to|Quondum}} I started this thread when Grufo started following me around on different articles, reverting my work and responded to attempts to discuss with personal attacks. I mentioned the first two and the personal attacks in the I made here. A couple of other users later said they observed problematic behavior from Grufo at other articles.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 12:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::: ''“other users later said they observed problematic behavior from Grufo at other articles”'': ], {{u|Vice regent}}. The only other person who mentioned a previous discussion of mine (i.e., the discussion about the Planck charge) has been {{u|Hemiauchenia}}, who after happily naming me “a civil pov pusher” argued that “ seems to have issues finding concensus with other users” – which, even if it was true, would hardly be a sin of any kind. Rather, the only persons who are making an explicit argument about my behavior have been you and an anonymous IP address so far – for ] as you accusing me of behavioral problems can sound. {{u|Quondum}} did that too in the past {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958372146|958328396|in a comment}} in another discussion, and I believe that comment was barely OK for him to make, or it was not OK at all. --] (]) 12:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::: You have missed the very first comment from an IP; that makes "people", plural. My comment and that of XOR'easter are also critical of your behavior. So I assume you will strike the first sentence of your comment and apologize. --] (]) 14:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: {{Reply to|Joel B. Lewis}} ''“So I assume you will strike the first sentence of your comment and apologize”'': Sure, if that's the case. I might have missed it, but where exactly have you made an “explicit argument about my behavior” concerning my activity on Misplaced Pages? And if you intend to do it now, please do come forward. As for {{u|XOR&#39;easter}}, although it is you who mentions him, if he feels he is making an “explicit argument about my behavior” as well (and not just making a point about why he thinks that the Planck charge is not a Planck unit), if he agrees I can change the sentence ''“the only persons who are making an explicit argument about my behavior have been you and an anonymous IP address so far”'' to ''“the only persons who are making an explicit argument about my behavior have been '''XOR'easter,''' you and an anonymous IP address so far”''. --] (]) 14:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: OMG. Yes, you may have missed it. Also the comment from the IP. The statement you have called a lie (!!!) is in fact plainly true. Your entire approach to discussion is seriously problematic, and you should spend more time reflecting on the criticisms in order to change your behavior going forward. --] (]) 15:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: I am sorry, I must be lacking research skills, but all I found from you is {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|972798343|972797473|this comment}}, where you seem very happy to be able to “focus on the substance of what people say”, but you do not express judgements about it. But please do integrate my research with what you consider your “explicit argument about my behavior” (I would like to know it also to be able to defend myself in case you have raised concerns about my past behavior anywhere and I have missed it). As for the IP address, since you are insisting I changed “editor” to “persons” in the sentence to include the IP address as well. As for the lie, please, do show me how it is a truth. --] (]) 15:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: {{tq|and not just making a point about why he thinks that the Planck charge is not a Planck unit}} &mdash; a ''base'' Planck unit. Please, I made my position clear. I want to be charitable, but this is either a careless error, a failure to understand the point I made repeatedly, or an inability/unwillingness on your part to summarize another editor's opinion accurately. (And in the direction of making that opinion sound absurd.) The latter two out of those three possibilities would mean that, even in a discussion about your behavior, you're exhibiting problematic editing habits. I didn't want to weigh in on anything other than the physics discussion because I hadn't yet had time to read it all. (I have limited time for Misplaced Pages stuff this week, and ANI drama is low on the list of things I'd like to spend it on.) I will concur that claiming another editor is making a {{tq|desperate search of approval from others}} is not OK. As for the supposed "lie", ] ''is'' problematic behavior. ] (]) 16:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{od}} {{Reply to|XOR&#39;easter}}:
	''“a ''base'' Planck unit. Please, I made my position clear”''
	: I wanted to remain out of that discussion for a reason, but since you insist (but please, let's make this short)… As we have widely discussed, there are two possibilities: either 1. we remove completely all electromagnetic units from the Planck units or 2. we replace the Planck charge with another electromagnetic unit in the base units (I remember you made the example of the Planck current). You said you would like to have the Planck charge among the derived units, but still keep it in the system, am I right? In this scenario we have to exclude case 1. Case 2. would require instead that you find references in support of another electromagnetic unit among the base units (let's say the Planck current). {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|959434435|959380226|Last time I checked}} you didn't have any references, have you found any in the meanwhile?
	''“I want to be charitable, but this is either a careless error, a failure to understand the point I made repeatedly”''
	: There is no careless error, I wanted to save you from the burden of facing the fact the your position shifted between several positions and ended with the most indefensible position: keeping the Planck charge in the system and inserting another electromagnetic unit among the base units (Quondum's position of removing the Planck charge completely was way more defensible) – to cite part of the vagueness of your initial position: {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958014501|958011341|#1}}: (no mention of base ''vs.'' derived yet) ''“It shows up in this formula or that, but without solid references spelling out its importance, we shouldn't be hyping it. In decades of being a physics person talking with other physics people, I haven't had one conversation that referred to it.”'' (the latter would also classify as POV to be strict); {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|958386376|958384595|#2}} the fact that according to you the Planck charge shouldn't be taken as a base unit because the sources simply ''“calculate it, but that's it”'' – to which I answered that all units are calculated, but whether you need a fundamental constant or not in the calculation is what make the unit base or derived.
	: Without doing this for all your comments, I think {{Diff|Talk:Planck units|959434435|959380226|the comment of mine I cited before}} shows quite clearly that I have always answered to your actual position, and not to a personal interpretation of mine about it.
	''“or an inability/unwillingness on your part to summarize another editor's opinion accurately”''
	: For as few as it matters, I was thinking something similar about you in that discussion, since I needed several comments to explain to you that with the Coulomb constant in the system the base units cannot be less than five. But I believe anyone can read that discussion and see with their own eyes who failed to miss the most about the opponent's point of view – if they believe this is something really important to do.
	''“] ''is'' problematic behavior”''
	: ] ({{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s accusation towards me) would require a careful analysis of my edits. When I tell a user they are POV-pushing something ] what POV they have inserted into an article and how. So far, besides this dispute with some editors that defend certain interpretations of Islam where we both accused each other of POV, I never had any particular problems with POV as far as I recall. I have been accused by you and Quondum of being OR in my defense of the Planck charge, sure, and I believe I have reacted to that by giving references.
	: I believe POV-pushing would be required to be ''definable'' in the first place. If I see a user {{Diff|Rape in Islamic law|967984201|967982055|adding a particular interpretation of Islam}}, or ] the former article “Sexual slavery in Islam” as “Concubinage in Islam”, I am perfectly able to define what POV is being pushed in that particular moment.
	--] (]) 18:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:My position was consistent from the start of that discussion until it faded into silence without consensus. I never advocated {{tq|inserting another electromagnetic unit among the base units}}; as an incidental point, I raised the possibility that a different electromagnetic unit ''could be defined,'' as part of an attempt on my part to explain why you were making an unwarranted leap of logic. I . Now you are accusing me of "POV" problems because I brought ''literal decades of experience studying and working in physics'' to the Talk page of a physics article. To be clear, I did not advance my experience as definitive proof of anything, and that you terminated with a full stop ], ending with, "and hunting through the literature strongly suggests that my sample is not too biased."
	:{{tq|I was thinking something similar about you in that discussion, since I needed several comments to explain to you that with the Coulomb constant in the system the base units cannot be less than five.}} I understood your point, and it is as irrelevant now as it was months ago. The question is not and was never "how many base units must there be", but rather, "Has the physics community actually bothered to make a formalized system of 'Planck units' with a solid distinction between which ones are 'base' and which are 'derived'?"
	:{{tq|I have been accused by you and Quondum of being OR in my defense of the Planck charge, sure, and I believe I have reacted to that by giving references.}} You provided references without regard to whether they were reliable or whether they actually supported your point. Some weren't, and none did. ] (]) 19:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: {{Reply to|XOR'easter}}
	:: ''“My position was consistent from the start of that discussion until it faded into silence without consensus. I never advocated {{tq|inserting another electromagnetic unit among the base units}}; as an incidental point, I raised the possibility that a different electromagnetic unit ''could be defined,'' as part of an attempt on my part to explain why you were making an unwarranted leap of logic”''
	::: To avoid any possibility of interpretations, I would like to ask you two simple questions (forgive me if you feel you have already answered): 1. How many Planck base units do you think the Misplaced Pages article should have? 2. Where should the Planck charge be placed?
	:: ''“Now you are accusing me of "POV" problems because I brought literal decades of experience studying and working in physics to the Talk page of a physics article”''
	::: I am usually way to gentle and never strict enough, but since here we are in a context where strictness seems to be enforced, I need to remind you that your personal experience is not verifiable (or paradigmatic), and therefore is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. This is not a trial against you, XOR'easter, this is a trial against me allegedly ] Vice regent.
	:: ''“Some weren't, and none did”''
	::: I believe some among the current references in the article about the Planck charge have definitely more authority than others, but to state that any of them is unreliable requires a precise mention of which one (if you want to check they should be all under ''§ History''). And since my points simply were that 1. the Planck charge is surely used “as such” in literature (Quondum's initial point about “'''Named''' Planck units”) and (secondarily) 2. when it is listed (not just mentioned) it tends to be listed exactly like Misplaced Pages does (together with length, mass, time and temperature), I believe the sources did support both my points enough.
	:: --] (]) 20:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Your questions appear to be content issues not suitable for ANI, which is a forum for conduct-related disputes, and I have already dissected the reliability of your sources above. (If anyone else thinks it would actually help for me to go down that path, I will, but I'd rather not try the community's patience. I suspect that my attempts to explain why the physics discussion is relevant have already brought more content into the conduct dispute than is preferred, but I saw no other way.) There's no rule against mentioning one's background on Talk pages, and you seem to be ignoring that in , I also described the results of a literature search. I did not advance my own experience as definitive or say that I should be cited in the article text (that would be weird); I was just being honest about where I was coming from, which is generally a good idea. ] (]) 21:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - {{diff2|1269549064|here}} they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when ] ] for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of ] without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. ]] 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== D.Lazard and ] ==
			: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)
	*{{articlelinks|Differential geometry of surfaces}}
			::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)
	*{{userlinks|D.Lazard}}
			: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)
	*{{userlinks|Russ Woodroofe}}
			::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 ===
	Blanking:
			:I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
	The article ] (DGS) is one that I helped prepares twelve years ago in February 2008. For some time I have known that DGS has not been in am imperfect state. While writing the article, I added further content which became a separate article ] (geared to graduate students). The original paper has many imperfections largely because, like other parts of wikipedia, it still remains '''''unwritten'''''. There were many gaps in the article, particular at the beginning and the lede, because it had broken off as a fork. However I decided recently to make the long overdue improvements to the article, knowing bits that were glaringly missing: first to ] and then to ]. I just summarised very briefly a page or two out of ] and ] (world experts).
			::
			: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 ===
	Then ] decided he did not like some of the new introductory material which he blanked five times. I believe that this kind of blanking is extremely uncommon on wikipedia. D.Lazard did not seem to have give any coherent explanation of his blanking. He wikilwawyered and criticized the title "Differential geometry of surface."
			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)
	D.Lazard has been told that the brief preparatory section is needed for the new section "Regular surfaces in Euclidean space". At the moment the paragraph of requisites is just a brief summary without proofs. The new content on "regular surface" is in the course of being written. The sources are the lecture noteds of ] and ], as well as text boos by Pelham Wilson, Andrew Pressley, ], ] and ]. D.Lazard's repeated blanking is unhelpful. In addition he has not made any attempt to discuss the proposed new material, which seems to me straightorward. He has accused me of ], but he knows that there are certain prerequistes are needed for telling the story of Gauss and his remarkable discoveries. Most of contributions in mathematics have been to harmonic analysis, symmetric spaces, representation theory, etc. Differential geometry of surfaces is an undergraduate article: in the UK that is the case (e.g. in Oxford and Cambridge) and also for honors undergraduates in the US. D..Lazard's blanking is incredible. He has no authority to prevent standard content being created. As far as I am aware, he does not produce any such content himself. Other blanking by Russ Woodruffe has also happened (using ] as a pretext).
			: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.
	I have created an even shorter summary, now placed only in the "Regular surface" section. D.Lazard's blanking has been disruptive. It seems to be a combination of ] and ]. Very little to do with content creation, which requires calm and careful thought. ] (]) 15:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Boomerang''' This is a content issue and it seems that only Mathsci refuses to cooperate with the consensus of other editors on that talk page. The so-called blanking is explained by edit summaries and talk page comments, so I'm not sure why Matshci thinks this drama board will support their ownership claim. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 15:42, 5 August 2020 (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)
	*{{ec}} I have removed the section ] that mathsci added recently, because it was out of the scope of this article. When I saw that mathsci started edit warring, I stopped reverting after my second revert, opened a discussion on this section on the talk page, and asked ] for help. Three established mathematical editors posted to ] with comments agreeing that this section should be removed. Mathsci participation to this discussion did not addressed the question of the relevance of ''this'' section for ''this'' article. I have considered that four against one (mathsci) is a clear ]. So, I reverted again this section (three times), and each time I was reverted, with personal attacks in the edit summary ("rvv - WP:BATTLEGROUND by edit-warrior - WP:NOTHERE - there has no been attempt to discuss the relevant mathematics and certainly no attempts to find "consensus" - OP seems not to actually seem ti have write very much content editing on wiipedidia recently" ). Finally (for the moment?) {{u|Russ Woodroofe}} reverted this section again. The fact that {{u|Russ Woodroofe}} was not among the editors that have commented on the talk page enforces the consensus.
			:::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)
	:About the accusation of ], it suffices to read above mathsci's post to be convinced that it is a problem for mathsci.
			::::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)
	:IMO, ] should be applied here. ] (]) 16:27, 5 August 2020 (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)
	* appears as a tentative of mathsci for escaping from ] by restoring the disputed material in another section. ] (]) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::(ec) In principle this involved updating and improving the article, I looked at it in 2008. During that updating period, I noticed that the article was incoherent, because of missing sections. The first task was then to add a few preliminary sentences, needed for surfaces: content on ]s; and content on ], needed for the ] and ] of a surface. A few minutes ago I added content related to the "first fundamental form". I wrote about the matrices <math>\begin{pmatrix}E & F \\F & G \end{pmatrix}</math>. It was blanked. At the moment material that should have been in the article along while back is being added. That was my initiative. The material is standard, but requires care. I think in my experience editing, I have never before seen blanking like this. At the moment this anodyne neutral topic is hardly ] when legendary folks like Mikemikev were trying to remove all references to Jensenism. This is just undergraduate mathematics. I have some vague memories of D.Lazard being difficult about ]s in the past, when I was editing material on ]s. I cannot see where ] comes into here. ] (]) 18:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:{{yo|Mathsci}} You need to respect editorial consensus. At the moment, the consensus of editorial opinion seems against you. ] ] 18:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{yo|Paul August}} I have noticed that you have been one of the very few editors to actively edit this particular article: many thanks for that! Originally this week I added a proof of the the inverse function theorem in this article; it only gradually became clear that it could be transplanted to another[REDACTED] article, where it belonged. Then step by step, I have tried to reduce the sentences about derivatives and diffeomorphisms to the very minimum, both to clarify what's going on with regular surfaces, while making it accessible to a general readership. From my own edits, I hope you can see that is what has been happening. In the article, there are still problems in defining principal curvature, Monge patches, etc. I am trying my best. ] (]) 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I'm sure you are trying your best. But this is not the place to discuss article content. This board is for discussing editorial conduct. ] ] 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	*I reverted ] because I saw them (following a post on the Math wikiproject) ignoring talk page consensus about the article -- ] seems relevant, but the pattern appeared to be more BRRRR. I also tend to agree that their additions are of ] length, although I don't believe that they are intending to be disruptive, and I actually do think there is room for including some small connection with lower-level material. I am concerned that they are continuing to edit the article in a way that is out-of-line with talk page consensus, while other involved editors are waiting for this ANI situation to play itself out. I agree that there may be cause for concern regarding ] issues. ] (]) 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
	*One of ANI's more esoteric reports to date, to be sure. ]] 10:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Comment:''' Here are the main points for which, in my opinion, ] must apply.
	**Edit warring after a consensus was reach on the talk page: the three first edits that are linked above are reversions of the same Mathsci's contribution from August 3. The last three are reversion from August 5 of the same contribution, after that a consensus was reach on the talk page.
	**Tentative to escape from ] by adding the same material in another section
	**Personal attacks in edit summaries, for example
	**Removal of a heading in the talk page, which makes nonsensical other's post
	**Systematic and still continuing use of article's page as a sandbox for preparing their contributions; see as a typical example. This is disruptive by making very difficult to others to review these fast changes, and fixing/improving/reverting them.
	**Contributions on the talk page that consist mainly in attacks on user conduct and summaries of sources that they think the most relevant ones; see ], and more recently ]
	: Although, IMO, none of these items is sufficient by itself for opening a thread here, all together, they form a highly disruptive behavior that must be stopped. ] (]) 10:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I hadn’t realized that this content dispute had escalated so far. The consensus at ] was very clearly against the inclusion of the disputed section. Mathsci has good intentions here, but should recognize that they have been ] against multiple editors and that they have made inappropriate and often tangential accusations against D.Lazard. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 09:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I stopped following the page because it was stressful, but I came back today and was shocked further. Every editor outside of MathSci has been unanimous that his edits are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, reading more like a textbook and using a level detail not appropriate for a high level article. There have been 300 edits since he started editing the page in late July, with 250 edits since Aug 3, and as far as I can tell there have been reverts back and forth every day for the past week. I don't know if its a thing you guys do, but I suggest the page be reverted back to the state it was in July 9 before any of the edits and locked for a time.] (]) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:*Postscript to the above comment: I think MathSci is intelligent and eloquent, and I think the material has use somewhere, but not in this article in this fashion. Others have suggested moving the new material to a new page and summarizing it on the main page, and I think that's a great solution. I post here not to condemn MathSci, but to admit that I'm not sure how to proceed; outside observers could see clearer, IMO.] (]) 20:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I am biased as an editor who has made some major changes in the last week, but I believe there have been vast improvements to the article since July 9, and I think it'd be a very bad idea to revert it. I know there is at least one other editor (D.Lazard) who thinks my edits have made a positive impact. In my opinion, mathsci's edits to the page have been highly confusing and in need of clarification, which in part explains the number of edits - in my own opinion, he's also made it rather difficult for me to improve the page. In essence, I think the article needed an almost complete rewrite for it to be clear. The (current) end result of the major edits, in section 3, is in its majority written by me and not by mathsci. It may look long and over-detailed, but it is very much not written as a textbook, it is just a summary of the main points. (There is one section on isometries, written by mathsci, which I think is unclear, as well as two paragraphs, also written by him, which are in discussion on the talk page.) ] (]) 21:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::It is not a good idea to restore an old version such as the one of mid July. At this time, the first technical section of the article was not as usual the definition of th object of study or the needed background. It started directly by the sentence "Informally Gauss defined the curvature of a surface in terms of the curvatures of certain plane curves connected with the surface." In other words the article could be understood only by people who already know its content. After {{u|Gumshoe2}}'s major edits, the article is much better and useful for a much wider audience. It would be a pity to destroy this good job. My contribution to this improvement is minor, because, while I know enough of the subject for understand and reviewing edits, I do not know enough for writing sections and chosing the material that deserve to be added (or kept). ] (]) 22:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::In summary, the problem here is that although Mathsci edits of the article and his contributions to the talk page are clearly done in good faith, they are very disruptive, and this would help to improve the article if they are stopped. ] (]) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Holy ]! This is ripe for a cool down and RfC to get more uninvolved eyes. ] (]) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I would really like to have some extra observers. What is an RfC? ] (]) 02:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{yo|Gumshoe2}}, See ], they need to be written neutrally. ] (]) 02:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Thank you. Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with the[REDACTED] bureaucracy... it says there "The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued," are you sure it's the appropriate way? It is also a little unfortunate that an observer might have to be somewhat knowledgeable in math to understand the situation ] (]) 03:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{yo|Gumshoe2}}, don’t focus on user(s), make it on how best to treat the contested content. ] (]) 07:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{to|Gleeanon409}} This page is not about article content, it is about user conduct. It is also clear in ], that the behavior of the opener of the thread has also to be considered. ] (]) 16:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	* '''Further comment'''. The discussion at ] is a newer example that is rather surrealistic. It seems that {{u|Mathsci}} discusses from another spacetime Universe. '''To administrators:''' It is time to stop Mathsci's disruptive editing, even if they are disruptive with good faith. ] (]) 16:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: I fully agree. Mathsci makes it extremely difficult to improve the page. ] (]) 17:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::If the section has been repeatedly removed by blanking against consensus then simply take the issue to ] for edit warring. If they are doing this across content on the article then make the case for a topic ban on the article itself. ] (]) 19:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	'''Remark.''' I have no idea what D.Lazard means by "rather surrealistic"? Here I had to check ] and ] in a specific source, a book of Eisenhart written in 1909. There were two formulas that needed to be checked. I also performed ] using a second source (a book of Dirk Struik written in 1961). So this was the standard process of ] and ] that happens in all[REDACTED] articles (or should do). The verification is here in the diff and it is rather tedious. I am stil editing articles on Bach organ music, where the same rules apply. Similarly articles on France where the same rules apply. Even very infrequently updating the early history parts of ] where the same rules apply. ] (]) 19:28, 14 August 2020 (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)
	'''Remark.''' I would like to be very clear. I think Mathsci is trying to be helpful and understands part of the material, but does not understand all of it, and is not himself able to draw the line between what he understands and what he doesn't understand. He is highly combative about presenting the material as he sees fit, mostly by drawing directly upon textbooks and authors he respects. This would of course be ok (and even in many cases very good) if he understood the material well enough. The discussion on the talk page about the Theorema Egregium, and newly, about a "derivative formula" of Gauss, shows that he does not. He is not able to respond to technical questions about what he is claiming, always just deferring to "standard sources" which he often misinterprets. Surely there is a wiki procedure that could directly deal with this, without locking the whole page? ] (]) 19:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			::Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you {{tq|absolutely agree with}} isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- ] (]) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Ok, sorry. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Non-neutral paid editor ==
	== IP range block needed for 2605:A601:AD87:300 ==
	{{archivetop|result=IP rangeblocked for one month. Please contact Oshwah or open another thread if problems continue after that. ] (]) 07:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	*{{IPvandal|2605:a601:ad87:300:bc81:44fe:2145:f0a8}}
	*{{IPvandal|2605:A601:AD87:300:F018:6692:3E83:8338}}
	*{{IPvandal|2605:A601:AD87:300:D469:75E3:B5C4:B610}}
	*{{IPvandal|2605:A601:AD87:300:28AB:FDDD:B790:73AA}}
	*{{IPvandal|2605:A601:AD87:300:8011:8E90:6B35:9AEB}}
	*{{IPvandal|2605:A601:AD87:300:5969:2564:CDBC:7F07}}
	*{{IPvandal|2605:A601:AD87:300:4D70:8246:3657:7DE3}}
	*{{IPvandal|2605:A601:AD87:300:159C:A24B:E828:93BC}}
			@] 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)
	Range block granted two weeks ago. ]
			:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
	Vandalism resumed immediately upon expiration of block. Examples:
	*		:* 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)
	The is nonstop, the editors are spending a lot of time trying to clean up the damage.
			*:@] - I think that '''sanction should be swiftly applied'''. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. ]&thinsp;] 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: {{ping|InformationToKnowledge}}, '''do not''' attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with ''anyone's'' real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the ''principles of privacy'' still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. ]&thinsp;] 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Could we get an edit to ] for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. ] (]) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== ] back to Andrewjlockley ===
	Would appreciate any assistance with this.] (]) 19:00, 6 August 2020 (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.
	:Unarchived this thread which was moved due to inactivity. --] (]) 21:21, 10 August 2020 (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.
	:Another example of pure disruption based on completely false information: --] (]) 21:23, 10 August 2020 (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.
	::{{done}}. I've blocked the ] IPv6 range for one month. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 05:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			::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)
	== Slow motion edit war ==
			*: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)
	] has been repeatedly reverting edits by a number of editors to their preferred version over a period of time. A slow motion edit war?
			*::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)
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Rally&type=revision&diff=946363843&oldid=946151827
			*:::... 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)
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=955498234
			*:::], 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)
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=955525346
			*::::{{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)
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=955664800
			*:::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)
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=955724213
			*::::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)
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=970766641
			*:::::if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at ] think it would be easier to avoid.
	] (]) 02:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
			*:::::opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
	:It's not only edit warring, it's edit-warring against a standing consensus. Helper201 obviously doesn't agree with that consensus (which is supported by multiple reliable sources), and is attempting to overturn it via edit-warring instead of allowing a new consensus (if any) to develop on the talk page. ] (]) 03:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
			*:::::alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? ] (]) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on ] of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant ] and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't ] people or contacting their employers. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I was not attempting to edit war. I was restoring back to the long-standing agreed upon version as these changes that were being made were frequently edit warred over and had not been discussed prior on the relevant talk page. They were often not discussed and seemingly changed on a whim without citations provided. I am seeking compromise and discussing the matter on this article's talk page. Please see the edits and discussion on the talk page in full context. ] (]) 10:06, 7 August 2020 (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)
	And another reversion:
			*::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)
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_Rally&type=revision&diff=971633693&oldid=971596701 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
			*:::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? ===
	*Yes, there seems to be a content dispute. The sourcing only improved on June 30, whereas the first revert is from March 19. Meanwhile, Bacondrum two biasedly worded RfCs and this AN/I thread. Seems overzealous. --] (]) 22:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
			EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit[REDACTED] seems analagous to . See also ]. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no ]. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. ] (]) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*No, the underlying content dispute has given rise to behavioral issues: slow motion edit warring on the part of Helper201 as well as an unwillingness on their hpart for the attendant talk page discussion to agree on a new consensus (it if does) to support their PoV. This is in ANI's wheelhouse, and cannot be batted off as solely a content dispute. ] (]) 17:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Lol. All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others. I love it when the rules only apply to some. ] (]) 04:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Regardless of the arguments presented on the article's talk page, the ] needs to come to a full stop until the discussion has concluded. I'm not to the level of giving out any warnings or proceeding towards administrative action at this time, so I'm hoping to give both ] and ] an informal warning here: Please do not make any more reverts or edits to the article until the discussion has come to a close. You both have a discussion ongoing and you're both trying to work things out; don't take it out on the article itself. Step back from the article, and discuss this. Proper ] does not mean that you can discuss the issue and revert one another at the same time. ;-) I don't want to see any more reverts on the article from either one of you until the discussion has concluded. If it does, I will have to start with "strike one" and issue a warning for edit warring. Then, from there, if it happens again, I will proceed with administrative action. I believe that you're both perfectly capable of handling this dispute ] and ], and I also believe that you both have a good sense of knowledge regarding Misplaced Pages's policies. If it needs to come to an ], so be it. Just keep civil, and keep things on the article's talk page. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 05:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I’ve not touched the article since filing this report. However Helper201 has continued to revert. Like I said, apparently some editors are more equal than others. Let him keep edit warring, why not. ] (]) 05:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{re|Bacondrum}} I'm not sure what you mean; Helper201 hasn't edited since August 7. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{re|Jayjg}} That was the third revert to their preferred version between the 2nd and 8th - made nearly eight hours after this discussion was started and they were definitely aware of this discussion. Despite a number of editors disagreeing with them over the course of a couple of months they have reverted to their preferred position seven times. If no further action is deemed necessary I'll leave it as they appear to have stopped. There appears to be a double standard in how rules are applied to different editors though. ] (]) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::{{re|Bacondrum}}, Helper201 has made dozens of edits since August 10, and has not reverted the National Rally article. Is there anything else you think needs to be done? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::No, not at this stage, they've stopped. ] (]) 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			:what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? ] (]) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			::I 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 ===
	For some reason {{u|Ehplimsoll}} has been changing English words to American spelling even know it's a bio on a British commander, adding capitalisation when you don't need too. Changing some of the English around which doesn't seem correct. Can someone else deal with this, I don't think he wants to listen to me. ] (]) 10:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:I am very happy to listen to any of {{u|Govvy}}'s suggestions. He is right to insist that a page drafted in English, on the subject of an Englishman, is written in English. Spelling is in accordance with the Oxford English Dictionary (en-GB-oxendict); grammar is corrected or amended where necessary. I would be worried if Administrators might seriously consider taking linguistic advice from a user that is apparently ignorant of the difference between a preposition and an adverb (for his benefit, to/too, respectively). ] (]) 10:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{u|Ehplimsoll}} Whilst a lot of your changes are OK, although the ''-ize'' suffix is given as a valid OED spelling, ''-ise'' is used far more often in the UK, so for articles that are written in British English where this is the longstanding spelling, I wouldn't change those. Also, changing "footballer" to the Americanism "soccer player" is something I wouldn't have done especially in this case when there's no possibility of confusion. ] 10:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::That edit with the footballer bugged me out when he changed footballer to soccer for a British player, words like apologised which is correct English to apologized. The possessive of ('S) on the end of Hawkins in a sentence mentioning his son seems wrong. Over use of the lower comma in places. I simply loose trust.. :/ ] (]) 11:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::: {{u|Black Kite}} The ''-ize'' suffix is ''the'' valid O.E.D. spelling; the usage is estimated to be 3:2, and I only made the single amendment for the sake of consistency. The latter amendment was necessary, as there ''is'' possibility of confusion. In England, there are two popular forms of football: Rugby football, and Association football. They are commonly abbreviated to "Rugby" and "Soccer" - though occasionally and erroneously to "Rugby" and "football" respectively. I am not here to judge adherents of the latter, I simply aim to ensure articles are clear. ] (]) 11:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::: That statement (that Association football is "erroneously" abbreviated to football), I'm afraid, shows that you don't actually know what you're talking about here. Football in the UK (and in most of Europe and many other places outside North America) is simply called "football". You ''will'' find UK references to "soccer", but that's an Americanism - used to differentiate from American football, of course - that has crept into use here and is certainly in a minority. If you check reliable UK news sources, you will find that their football section is always called just that. (, , etc. etc.) ] 11:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::: There he goes again and I really don't think En-5 is warrented on ] now. :/ ] (]) 11:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::{{u|Black Kite}} According to the O.E.D., ''football'' is the more usual term in Britain and Ireland, except in cases where it is necessary to distinguish soccer from other forms of football. I have cured the uncertainty, and deferred to your opinion, by retaining the word and referencing Plymouth Argyle Football Club, which plays association football. {{u|Govvy}} I am struggling to see the value of criticism from someone that doesn't know the difference between "loose" and "lose". You profess to be a native English speaker, but you are far from proficient in writing. I don't mean to criticize, but you really ought not endeavour to make corrections in areas beyond your understanding. ] (]) 11:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::: In England, there are ''three'' popular forms of football: association football (commonly called football), rugby league and rugby union. (I am safe in specifying England rather than UK; league is hardly played in the other three countries.) Rugby football is a class of games, not a single game. League and union are more different from each other than are American and Canadian football. "Soccer" used to be used, but has largely fallen out of use because it's perceived as an Americanism. It was always more of an upper-class word anyway, probably Oxford University slang from late C19 (like e.g. brekker, champers and rugger).
	:::::::: Oh, and "-ise" is completely standard in British English. The OED ''records'' usage worldwide; it does not ''specify'' it anywhere.
	:::::::: It is for reasons like this that my User Page says en-gb and en-us-4. I imitate US customs where appropriate, but my US grammar and punctuation will never be perfect. ] (]) 12:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::: Loose and Lose? Really... loads of people can make that mistake, we hardly ever refer to Rugby Football in this country anymore. {{u|Ehplimsoll}} you wrote "but you really ought not endeavour to make corrections in areas beyond your understanding." Ouch, now who is being rude! I didn't make corrections need I remind you, I only reverted you! But you still seem to be changing British English to Americanisms. I strongly feel you should consider your actions, you seem to be digging a hole here. ] (]) 12:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{reply to|Narky Blert}} ''Oh, and "-ise" is completely standard in British English. The OED ''records'' usage worldwide; it does not ''specify'' it anywhere.'' My copy of the ''Oxford Style Manual'', which *does* specify use, says "'''recognize''' ''not'' -ise". --] &#124; ] 14:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{ping|Calton}} Perhaps they should tell the editors of the style guides of '']'' (), '']'' () and '']'' (]). ] (]) 15:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::: {{reply to|Ehplimsoll}} Thanks for telling someone who has lived in the UK for 46 years exactly how British people talk. And you're ''still'' wrong. It isn't necessary to distinguish football from other sports in the UK, because Rugby football is always called "Rugby" (or "Rugby Union" and "Rugby League"), and American football (unsurprisingly) is always called "American football". But thanks for your input. ] 13:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::: Oh, and by the way, you've already reverted (or partially reverted) four times on that article today, so I'd advise against doing it again. ] 13:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{u|Narky Blert}} There are indeed three, if you wish to include Rugby League: seems to further validate the clarification which raised this issue. We can debate the use of the term soccer if you wish, but given it is no longer included in the article, I cannot see the relevance. I would quickly point out, by your own explanation (as it being a term reserved originally to the élite), that the fact it is ''perceived'' as an Americanism is not necessarily the ''cause'' of its waning popular use.
	::::::::::I did not suggest that the ''-ise'' suffix was non-standard. You are right to point out that the O.E.D. is a dictionary of record, however the only variants Murray was prepared to recognize, or recommend, if you prefer, were those with ''-ize'' suffixes. The changes I made were for the purposes of consistency - I am far too aware of the futility of imposing a given orthodoxy on a wiki.
	:::::::::::Given your knowledge of these various proclivities, and attention to detail, I would suggest that you may be being too modest about your writing and editing capabilities. However, it is right that you have carefully considered your capacity in this regard, and represented accordingly.
	::::::::::::{{u|Govvy}} I didn't wish to be rude. I did, perhaps unnecessarily, point out the irony of a classification being challenged by one who is, if anything, below his professed capabilities. I would suggest that you are considerably less likely to be criticized in this regard if you refrain from unnecessarily instigating criticism. ''Please'' learn the difference between variations in standard British English and Americanisms before casting sweeping declarations.
	:::::::::::::{{u|Black Kite}} You have already recognized that there is variety in use, and there is, therefore, no inherently correct form. Given that I originally used a form you accept to be standard, albeit waning in popularity as {{u|Narky Blert}} helpfully clarified, how can I be ''wrong''? Referring to what I presume is your age is a rather desperate justification of wisdom. As I have said above, we can continue to debate this (hopefully constructively, if you can manage it), but I don't see how doing so will be of any benefit: the page has been updated according to ''your'' preference. Please refer me to any guidelines which preclude multiple edits in a given time frame. I would suggest that there would be fewer had my changes not been undone without due consideration. ] (]) 13:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::"Please refer me to any guidelines which preclude multiple edits in a given time frame" — this suggests to me that the user needs a formal 3RR warning. I have supplied one. ] &#124; ] 14:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC).
	::::::::::::::: Yeah, I did actually link 3RR in my last edit summary, but you're right that it should be made clear. ] 15:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:I am not sure that "not talking the right language" is actionable, and would have said "no action" but for what I read on their talk page. <s>Clear not listening,and (possibly) edit warring over something so trivial tells me they are going to be a net drain.</s> I think the warning is enough for now.] (]) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{u|Slatersteven}} I cannot to see where I have failed to listen, please enlighten me. I would also request detail about what exactly was so offensive on my talk page. I would point out that I have not been edit warring over this admittedly trivial matter - I accepted the edit, and subsequently enhanced/clarified the subject matter. I have simply ''debated'' the initial reversion here, whilst ''accepting'' the consensus - indeed, my subsequent change was according to the preferences put forward in the course of this conversation. I challenge you to point out what exactly, if anything, I have done wrong. ] (]) 15:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::If you look I have struck that part.] (]) 15:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
			<s>Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. {{Noping|EMsmile}} is a paid editor who violated ] - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight ''are highly disruptive'' - and that's notwithstanding the ''paid editing.'' Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. </s> Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. ] (]) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'm always suspicious of editors who scrub their talk pages of warnings without archiving them. Ehplimsoll's conduct has left a funny taste in my mouth, and their use of flowery language and wikilawyering smacks of an editor using an alternate account to avoid a block. Does the ] page have a history of these sort of changes? – ]] 16:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Not that I am aware of no, and serious allegations (such as Socking) need a bit more then "well its all a bit odd".] (]) 16:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I'm not alleging that it is the case, I'm just saying I'm suspicious. – ]] 18:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::<small>I have always striven to eschew elaborate and arcane language, finely-nuanced legalistic argumentation and ''ad hominem'' points, lest some reader erroneously induce that I was taking the piss. ] (]) 19:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	What's with the BST timestamps? <span style="color:red">—] (])<span style="color:red">]—</span> 02:52, 10 August 2020 (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.
	== 109.197.152.21 ==
			: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)
	* {{IPvandal|109.197.152.21}}
			*:{{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)
	Removes stuff mainly about Kurdish but other languages as well.
			*::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)
	* They removed text from 3 times this year
			*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)
	* from Kurdish phonology last year as well
			*: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.
	* Also done these kinds of things in other Wikipedias.
	* More stuff removed/incorrect stuff added in other language-related pages.
	Been ]. This IP appears to be only used for adding incorrect information or removing correct information.
			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).
	Why is nothing being done? This is the 3rd time I'm reporting this... -- ] (]) 13:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
			Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:
	* Unless I'm missing something, they haven't edited since the 17 July. ] 13:54, 9 August 2020 (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.
	::{{mention|Black Kite}} Checking their contributions, pauses like this are not common before they return and continue (please mention me so I can see your message quicker). -- ] (]) 19:53, 9 August 2020 (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.
	:There's no action that we can take at this time. The user's last edits are from July 17; we can only do something if their disruptive editing is ''recent'' or ''currently in progress''. Next time this user edits disruptively, make sure to warn the user appropriately, and if the user continues after enough warnings have been given to them, report them to ] or do so here. Then, we'll be able to take action at that time and when they're actively causing disruption. As of right now, blocking the user would be inappropriate and against the ]. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:03, 11 August 2020 (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 ].
			When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks." I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil.
			EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "{{tq|And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Misplaced Pages now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Misplaced Pages editing policies.}}." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "{{tq|That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page.}}" Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Misplaced Pages to advocate for your client.
	== Reviving an archived thread re: ] ==
			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)
	In ], I started a thread about {{userlinks|Pillow4}} and his problematic edits in the area of biological taxonomy. {{u|Elmidae}} posted that the user's edits "appear kinda competent", but then Pillow4 created a sock account ({{userlinks|Pillow6}}), and now a new account ({{userlinks|Quilt1}}, already reported at ]) has popped up with the same pattern of edits. I suggest that the use of multiple socks for this purpose invalidates any claims of ] and that all edits of Pillow4 and all discovered socks should be mass-reverted. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	*I don't understand this guy... if they had discussed what they were doing and hadn't started sock-jumping on slight provocation, that could have been quite productive. In view of recent behaviour (including totally losing it on Chiswick Chap's TP), I'd support mass-reverting - some of this stuff is pretty arcane and would be hard to check by your average editor, and good faith clearly can't be assumed here anymore. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	*{{A note}} ] did not notify Pillow4 of this thread; I have done so now. —] (]) 18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
	:] - Have you created a case at ]? ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{ping|Oshwah}} They did, ] (1 Technically indistinguishable, 1 Likely). The master is still unblocked, though (I asked why, but it was archived before a response). —] (]&nbsp;&bull;&#32;]) 04:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Ah, thank you for the link. You could ask the reviewing checkuser for additional information. It's likely that they found connections between the socks, but not the master... ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::: {{reply|Oshwah}} As noted on the SPI archive page, Pillow4 and Pillow6 were rated "technically indistinguishable". Pillow6 was blocked, but not Pillow4. I have {{u|Vanjagenije}} (the blocking admin) why. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::] - Thanks for letting me know. I got distracted with other matters, and I didn't have a chance to go through the SPI case. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 12:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} {{reply|Vanjagenije}} Thanks for taking care of that. With all parties now blocked, should we consider a mass revert of all offending parties' edits, or should we inquire of the ] whether the edits are productive? ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::I don't know. '''] ]''' 22:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::: I've to the WikiProject for their assessment. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:There's now "Pillowquilt": created today, who has asked, nay, commanded, at the ] that four drafts created by Pillow6 be "change ... to Normal ones". --] (]) 16:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Sigh. Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked. ] (]) 17:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			I looked at ] last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics '''written 73% of the article''', in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
	== Patrisse Cullors again, same user editing through RfC ==
	*{{pagelinks|Patrisse Cullors}}
	*]?
	*{{userlinks|Fa suisse}}
			<small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small>
	An RfC is running on ] regarding adding Marx/Marxist/Marxism content.
			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)
	The same user, as soon as the article’s full protection expired, despite being told to wait for the RfC to end, and consensus.
			: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.
	I’d appreciate more eyes on the situation and for the contentious content to be re-removed until consensus forms. ] (]) 03:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: ] and ], then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).
	:The article needs to be fully protected until a consensus is determined. The edit-warring is out of control. ] (]) 03:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.
	::I agree. I'll be doing that now. I've also warned ] for edit warring. If it continues after the full protection has expired, this user will be fair game for being blocked without further warnings. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for ] apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from ]? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?
	:::{{done}}. The current revision had the "Marxist" content added back to the article. Per the guidelines on ], I am not allowed to change the revision of the article prior to applying full protection, unless the current revision violates a serious Misplaced Pages policy (] violation, ], ], etc). It assures that I am not seen as "taking a side" and using the admin tools in order to push a certain opinion or point of view. But, of course, despite this explanation, I have absolutely without-a-doubt ]. And for that, I am sorry. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.
	:The first message (from Gleeanon409) is a lie. The protection expired almost a week ago. The situation has changed with the publication yesterday of a new reliable source on the topic (the Politico article), which ends the debate. My edit was balanced to the point where it mentioned a point you, Gleeanon409, made on the talk page, the "dog-whistle" argument. I will engage again on the talk page, where Gleeanon409's avowed political agenda for blocking this content is on full display, and which has unfortunately become a tool for the prevention of advancement on this article. This behavior, which has been going for more than a month and led to many complaints, is also against policy. ] (]) 04:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks ''in this thread'' but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." ] (]) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:
			::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)
	:Also, Gleeanon409 has removed additions I made to a list of sources on the RFC section of the talk page, acting like the owner of the page and trying to set the terms of the discussion. Diffs : , . ] (]) 05:16, 11 August 2020 (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)
	::] - This is a content dispute, and it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Please review ] on how to properly handle and escalate disputes. If you two can't decide on a ] together, then take the next step. Get neutral input by other editors, file a ], do what it takes to resolve this civilly. This is not the place to do that. You two have been given the actions that I determined were fair and necessary, which was to warn you both informally that further edits and reverts made to the article by either one of you would be actionable. It's now up to the two of you to resolve this in the correct way. Just don't touch the article itself - that's all I ask. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 07:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			::did report to ] ] (]) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::After the last visit to ANI, I started a RfC as suggested. With one, maybe two exceptions, editors have been civil. Fa suisse proceeded to assume bad faith with most everyone who disagreed with them as can be seen above, and throughout the talk page. It took two editors to explain how reading a book about Marx does not make a person a Marxist.{{pb}}What they fail to realize is that just wedging in every instance where Cullors and Marx intersect does not improve the article, NPOV writing reflecting the best reliable sources does. They seem to be waging a battle against no one else. If we need to do a series of RfC’s then sobeit.{{pb}}Fa suisse was asked to gain consensus several times and they continued to edit war. What they are missing is that some form of the content is quite likely to be used despite their poor conduct because of the Politico source identified. They need to wait until the RfC ends *and* consensus on how to include the information is formed. ] (]) 08:03, 11 August 2020 (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)
	::::] - I understand. This is why I've fully protected the article until this ] comes to a close, informally asked you two to stop reverting one another, and stated that imposing a block would be a logical next step if Fa suisse continues to ]. In the end, this dispute is content-related and we need for the disruption toward the article to stop - I'm sure you understand that. :-) I don't want to see anybody blocked; I'm trying to push everyone toward ] and reach a ]. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 10:48, 11 August 2020 (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 ===
	Have they been warned already?] (]) 10:12, 11 August 2020 (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>
	:Yes. ] (]) 13:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Then we need to go to the next step.] (]) 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I can't imagine seeing a community sanction or administrative block here unless the previous warning was given by an admin, rather than a party that was involved in the dispute--and I take it from the wording above that this is a case of the latter, rather than the former. Besides, I don't think it would serve the interests of arriving at a longterm stable solution to the dispute. Additionally, blocks are only given for preventative reasons, not punitive ones: with the article protected for a week (or at least as long as it takes to form a consensus), further disruption to the article itself is impossible (at least for the short term) and it can be hoped that under the new circumstances a middle ground solution can be reached which all parties can be satisfied with (or which at least can gain the support of consensus). In short, {{u|Oshwah}} has already pointed the way forward here, both expressly above and in the conditions set in the edit summary for the protection action: continue to attempt to forge a consensus.
	:::On that last topic, I note that discussion has not yet begun again in earnest on the talk page; that is perhaps for the best, as a brief breather from engagement by both "sides" and a little bit of time to digest the new sourcing could be helpful both in lowering the heat and letting everyone consider where we go from here rather than digging further into entrenched, dogmatic positions that they might not otherwise have if not for the tension of the dispute. When discussion does resume (within hours, I would presume), the focus needs to fall on untying this gordian knot that has resulted from a hotly disputed RfC (with presently about equal !votes going either way) combined with the fact that we now have a new source, half-way through the process, which may shift many opinions. That's an incredibly complex situation that is going to present difficulties for further discussion and consensus building and for anyone who has to make a formal close of the discussion. However, it also presents an opportunity: if Fa suisse and Gleeanon, as the two original parties of the dispute (as best I can tell?) were to come to an agreement about how to proceed from here in light of the new developments, many other editors might follow suite and we could have a (relatively) civil resolution to the whole matter.
			:::<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)
	:::Gleeanon, a comment you made above suggests to me that you now favour including brief reference to the topic (or at least that you recognize this is likely to be the consensus given the new sourcing). Like me, I suspect you find the weight that Fa suisse gave to the topic in the currently live edit to be excessive, and would favour something that simply discusses the original 'Marxist' quote and makes quick reference to the fact that Cullors feels the comment was leveraged by right-leaning pundits to mischaracterize herself and the movement (in short, an attributed partial quote to the original interview and an attributed quote to the Politico interview where she clarifies herself, ideally all in a single sentence and not in the lead). I suspect that this is an approach which a significant majority of editors could get behind, given the present sourcing: a number of the !votes supporting inclusion originally only wanted the topic included so that the article would address these alleged media manipulations, after-all. I think Fa suisse could also be convinced to support such a version, with the right wording. Obviously the full matter of the content cannot be decided here, but if the above solution is something you can see yourself supporting, can I suggest you start there when discussion resumes, with a clearly marked subsection that pings the previous RfC respondents so that perhaps consensus will be fairly swiftly forthcoming and the page protection can be removed as per Oshwah's conditions? ''] ]'' 14:52, 11 August 2020 (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)?
	::::I am not on any side here, nor am I edit-warring in any way. I’m again suggesting the contentious content under dispute be removed and the RfC to continue.{{pb}}This is a current news story so I fully expect more and better sources to appear. With the Politico one we now have two(!), so a reasonable sentence with some context seems possible.{{pb}}Fa suisse has been warned by many users and at least a few admins so I hope they’ll refrain from more poor editing choices. ] (]) 17:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			::::
	:::::I made an edition a week after protection expired, following developments (new reliable source). Gleeanon409 proceded to remove the whole of my addition, instead of the part they disagree with. I reverted that, and clearly explained that if they want to do so, they should remove the part they consider contentious. I have consistently used civil language on the talk page and in edits, which isn't the case of Gleeanon409. My allegations of political agenda are based on explicit claims of such by Gleeanon409 on the talk page. I don't have a problem with a continued discusssion on the talk page, nor a removal of my latest addition. I just wish for a constructive engagement of all parts, without baseless allegations, snark, acting-as-page-owner(s), and systematically using procedure as a tool to prevent encyclopedia-writing. The repeated personal attacks and disruptive editing by Gleeanon409 against myself are incidental and not central to the topic. I don't feel like asking for dispute resolution at the time due to my loss of faith in the possibility of said user to engage calmly with the matter. I do however have faith in the process and will calmly make my point(s) on the talk page, where hopefully Gleeanon409 will stop removing my additions to the debate in what do look like acts of spite. I don't have hope that Gleeanon409 will stop trying to fix the terms of the debate, but that's okay, others users are now involved, and hopefully we can collectively work towards writing content instead of bickering. Cordially, ] (]) 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			::::By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on ] (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).
	::::::Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks you mention? That will help us understand your viewpoint. ] (]) 22:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			::::] is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)
			::::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)
	== E-960 ==
	{{atop|result=There is consensus for a '''community imposed TBAN from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed'''. Participants weren't clear on what that means but my understanding from the discussion is that it includes: (1) any edit relating to the topic of Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to ], broadly construed, in European politics. Since that's an interpretation of the discussion, I want to explain specifically how I came to that conclusion. The original proposal was a topic ban from all religious topics, not simply European religious topics, and some editors explicitly stated they wanted "Christianity and European politics" as more tailored to the area of disruption. In discussing what that area of disruption was, narrowing "religion" to "Christianity" was pretty strightforward, but participants tended to focus on European politics as it related to the editor's views of secularist politics rather than European politics writ large. Some people did suggest they intended the broader "all European politics" interpretation, but there's not a clear consensus for the broad interpretation. Either way, editors suggest E-960 take some time to cool off, and their willingness to enter into a voluntary TBAN shows they understand that necessity. Some suggested a cban, but there was no consensus at this time. Some suggested a block, but per the discussion and ] there is no consensus to impose a block at this time. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	Was discussed in two threads he started above. After the discussion, E-960 accused other editors of . I warned E-960, and afterwards E-960 did it again on , and then While the personal attacks require action, there is an underlying issue of E-960 being unable to deal the topic neutrally. Evident in the extreme arguments employed by E-960, and by:
	* : ''Cabayi, I find you statement ''"weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians"'' quite frankly despicable, as a Christian I'm offended''
	* : ''I'm actually personally offended''
	* : ''JimRenge, I'm incensed by what happened on the ] page''
	If E-960 is personally offended (as a Christian), accuses other editors of employing "Bolshevik" methods, and is (''1. Enraged; infuriated; spitefully or furiously angry''), then E-960 is unable to edit neutrally. I propose E-960 be topic banned from religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict.--] (]) 06:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' my own proposal.--] (]) 06:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	Ok, this is blatant bias, so other editors can freely throw the follow not too subtle accusations that I'm advocating "conspiracy theories" or "canards", but I make the comparison to this type of accusations as "bolshevik" (who called themselves the "majority" and labeled everyone else who was against them as the "minority") and I'm the one that's out of line, and needs to be censured:
	*User Cabayi said:''"If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the conspiracy"''
	*User Drmies said: "''"And please don't come here with canards about worldwide persecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever"''
	I can see that those editors REALLY articulated their positions in an objective and meritorious manner. Just like I was told yesterday by another editor: ''"I do see someone being overly sensitive"'', so to those that are offended by the bolshevik comparison you are just being "overly sensitive". --] (]) 06:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:They expressed their opinions which were '''''firmly based on facts and reality''''', while you have expressed your opinions which are based on your '''''emotions''''' and imagined "facts". We base our articles on verifiable facts, and not on the personal distress of an editor. That you cannot edit on this basis is the reason a topic ban is appropriate. ] (]) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed and three months off all editing''' Editor does not seem to understand what constitutes a reliable source and seems to be over engaged in the suject and not open to discussion. Needs time to reflect -----] <sup>]</sup> 07:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Suppliment: the compatitve nature of the response here and on this not to mention this and the attack on the closing admin's talk page, all confirm my view that this editor badly needs a break from the subject -----] <sup>]</sup> 08:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per Snowded. User has shown he cannot divorce himself from the subject matter. — ''']''' 07:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - It's a sensitive matter to some, and I can understand E-960 being offended and sensitive about it. I think a piece of simple advice to calm down and advise to try to understand the opposite side will solve it.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 07:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:WOW!!! An editor just wrote on the ] page, in response to my RfC about Christian marginalization, quote: ''Dismiss AFAIK, Christians are still the majority of EU inhabitants. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)'' — solid argument, can't argue with that kind of logic. And you really expect to project an degree of neutrality and knowledge with those kinds of arguments? You got to be kidding me! --] (]) 07:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::And your reply to it was your own sort of ]: equating EU with Communist totalitarianism. ] (]) 08:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' This editor does not understand that equating EU with Communism is kind of ]. ] (]) 08:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::] with your comment on the talk page '''"Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy"''' you just proved my point that there is political/ideological bias in how this issue is being handled on Wikipeida. No wonder, other editors can make disparaging remarks my way, but I make a similar comparison in the opposite direction and I got a sanction heading my way. Btw, the EU has never been criticized for a deficiency in democracy at the institutional level. What you just said is exactly what the bolsheviks accused Christians of in the past, that Christians are against the people's voice! ] (]) 08:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Let me tell you a secret, in Europe the Cold War is over, Communism is over. ] (]) 08:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::hmmm... and how does that excuse your offensive comment about Christians when you said '''"Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy"''', I'm confused. --] (]) 08:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::*This has to come for a play book of some kind, equating Christians with "radicals" and opponents of "democracy" time and time again. On the ] page, I reverted not too long ago a statement which called Ordo Iuris (a conservative Catholic organization) "FAR-RIGHT".--] (]) 08:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::] Please calm down; I think you are overreacting. Nobody is intentionally trying to hurt your religious beliefs. Please try to compromise with the point of view of other editors who might not share the same opinion as you are.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 08:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::It is not even a secret that ] pushes for "illiberal democracy". ] (]) 09:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::*:{{u|E-960}}, oppression is what happens when you try to enforce your beliefs on others, not when you're prevented from doing so.
	::::*:In the US and increasingly elsewhere (e.g. Australia and the UK), Christians are the ones who want to ban abortion, gay marriage, legalise discrimination against gay and trans people, allow companies to opt out of providing birth control to female employees, mandate state funding of churches and the teaching of creationism alongside (or, ideally, instead of) reality-based biology, allow preachers to endorse political candidates from the pulpit and the rest? Yes, it's the same people who held out against allowing black people marrying whites and using the same facilities as whites.
	::::*:The Christian persecution narrative was perfectly summed up by Jon Stewart.
	::::*:{{tpq|“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”}}
	::::*:To be fair, we got there in the end: after 44 consecutive Christian or Deist Presidents, there came Trump, a man who has never been willingly seen inside a church (except perhaps for his string of marriages, each of which he betrayed through infidelity). ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::<small>Didn't I hear a rumor that Obama was a Muslim? ] (]) 01:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::::::On what planet is the President of the United States allowed to do anything with his power that would advance the cause of Christianity? Trump can't even walk to his local church without people freaking the hell out. JC himself could be elected President, and it would do nothing to halt the march of secularism in the land of the free. ] (]) 19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::{{tq|his local church}}{{snd}}Good one. ]] 01:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Secularism means simply that the Church does not dictate the laws of the country. ] (]) 20:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::Hardly. Secularism in the American political system means that the state is totally separate from all religions, and that no religion has official status - and, yes, there are examples where that is not actually followed, such as the U.S. Senate having an official chaplain, but it's still the case more often than not. ] (]) 01:41, 12 August 2020 (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)
	*{{U|GizzyCatBella|}} is to be commended for trying to de-escalate. Unfortunately, {{ping|E-960}}'s responses here and in the previous two threads are in effect arguing for some sort of sanction. If interacting with other editors causes one to see personal attacks where there are none, and causes one to become enraged and feel offended, they are too close to the issue to edit objectively and neutrally. '''Support''' ] as proposed for articles dealing with religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict. (They seem to be bringng an off-Wiki struggle into their editing. That never ends well.) User will need to interact ]ly with others and show an understanding of ]s to have TBAN reconsidered. --<b>] ]</b> 09:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:<small>(involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before)</small>. To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. ] (]) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I don't befoul Misplaced Pages often with foul language, but now ''I'm'' incensed'. {{ping|E-960}}, what the actual fuck makes you think some of the respondents here are not Christians, with deep and abiding faiths? Your slathering-at the-mouth approach and personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are most unbecoming. Your crap about, "has to come for a play book of some kind," is wholly unacceptable. --<b>] ]</b> 09:23, 11 August 2020 (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.
	:::] - Lets tone down the hostility and the language. :-) I agree with your message, just not the words you chose to use. There's no need for that; we need to be setting the example here and leading others by our actions and how we respond to... not so understandable messages. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 09:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			::I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the ] article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the ] article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page ]. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) ] (]) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::], to answer your questions, did I not write above all the comment that came my way? Did I not write in examples of what I interpret as bias? I have the feeling you did not even bother to read my comments just follow the narrative other editors made. --] (]) 09:37, 11 August 2020 (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.
	:::::] - Your observation is noted. Regardless, this proposal for a topic ban is going to proceed with input and discussion. Based off of the responses you've given here, as well as elsewhere, I must say that you're not helping your case. I would advise not adding any more fuel to the fire. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 09:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			:::At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a ] to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::], please consider that if the responses to my points were objective and constructive we would not be here. Right now its just blame e-960 for this or that, but no one is saying, this is not an appropriate way to respond on sensitive topics. If an editor reverts a text at least have decency to provide constructive feedback, and if you disagree with my point don't make a snide remarks, and say nothing happened. --] (]) 09:49, 11 August 2020 (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)
	:::::::{{EC}} ] - I'm not sure what comment I made was "snide"? I have made no judgement for or against you. I'm moderating this discussion as a completely neutral party, as I might be the one that will be tasked with closing it. All I am saying is that this discussion is going to receive input, in support or opposition, to the proposal - and it will close with an appropriate ruling based off of the establishment of ]. I didn't say whether or not the comments you listed above were constructive, and I have not labeled you as "the bad guy". There's obviously some merit to the proposal based off of the input that this discussion has received by other editors; my task at this time is to maintain the peace here and keep the discussion ]. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 10:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per Femke. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::] clarification, not refering to you specifically, the "you" was just a generic reference to other editors, not to be understood personally. --] (]) 10:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' and will withdraw my proposal above. ] (]) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::] - Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 10:52, 11 August 2020 (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)
	::], can you describe the below comments as objectivie, respectful and merit based?
			*'''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)
	::*User Cabayi said:"If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the conspiracy"
			*'''Support''' per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. ] (] · ]) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::*User Drmies said: ""And please don't come here with canards about worldwide persecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever"
			*'''Support as proposer''' and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::*User Tgeorgescu said: "Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy" ] (]) 09:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* This is bordering on ], and certainly ]. Reminder: when you are accustomed to provilege, equality looks like oppression. See also ]. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 09:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I believe that if you administer E-960 to calm down and voluntarily stay away from religious topics for a while, it will be enough. E-960 is a reasonable editor, and I'm sure they will agree. Would you ]? Just take a break and rethink everything tomorrow, I'm sure you will come to different conclusions. Right now, emotions are speaking, not E-960.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 10:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I definitely can, but I expect the admins to hold other sides responsible for the escalation. The comment by ], is a perfect example of bias displayed outright on Misplaced Pages. That's a personal attack accusing me of holding some privilege, yes in Communist Poland we all had it so good as Christians. --] (]) 10:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::I think YOU were asked if you would do this, not anyone else.] (]) 10:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::The PRL ceased to exist 30 years ago, and, since then, Catholicism ''has'' had a privileged position, especially in recent years. ] (]) 10:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I have to say that I'm not an atheist, but this summarizes how Christians are persecuted by atheists in US and EU: https://www.pinterest.at/pin/116178865364921049/ ] (]) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)#
	:::::::.pinterest?] (]) 15:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::{{re|Slatersteven}} It's also available at https://www.skeptical-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/get.jpeg ] (]) 15:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::I think you have it backwards. The cartoon does not show "how Christians are persecuted by atheists in US and EU", it depicts precisely the opposite, how '''''atheists''''' are persecuted by '''''Christians'''''. Note that the person holding a Bible is telling the other person to "Stay quiet" -- that's the Christian (=Bible) commanding silence from the atheist. The "old" atheist holds his tongue, but the "new" atheist says "No". ] (]) 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::], I think you are just baiting with that comment and trying to get me to say something over top. What you are saying is right out of some playbook. Yes Guy, under communist oppression Christians were privileged, very much so. Btw, please tell me what happening in this video , are those the "privileged" Christians you are talking about? I can find more clips like that for you if you'd like. --] (]) 10:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{tq|trying to get me to say something over top}} seems very easy to do. So perhaps you could knock off all the ridiculousness and melodrama and stick to basic problems like finding high-quality sources and accurately representing the mainstream view. —-] (]) 11:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{u|E-960}}, LifeSite? Srsly? GTFO. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 11:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*If had known there was an ANI thread I would have said here what I said on my talk page: "You just added another canard: "Cultural Marxism". What's funny is that you totally misrepersecutedad what I wrote. The canard is the supposed media suppression. Linking a BBC story about that very issue proves your point was invalid. But, and this is pretty relevant for someone who wants to be writing an encyclopedic, you presented someone's opinion (that of Philip Mounstephen) as if it were a fact. You can't do that." In other words, E-960 has reading issues that, in my opinion, likely prevent them from editing neutrally. Representing opinion as fact, reading selectively, that's not good. So I support a topic ban, sure, though these problems are not just relevant in the proposed area. ] (]) 14:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			===Voluntary restrictions===
	*'''Support''' – When I first came across one of the related threads yesterday I was tempted to try to intervene along the lines of the position that {{u|GizzyCatBella}} is taking here. At this point we're looking at a clear case of ] with a side of dead horse beating and a penchant for sucking up way more editor-time than this deserves. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{Ping|EMsmile}} Just clarifying
	*'''Support''' - 3 threads in 2 days and a huge degree of I didn't hear that thrown in. They either need some cooling time or just prevented from continued disruption and eating up so much time. ] ] 14:47, 11 August 2020 (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)
	*'''Support'''. The main source for their complaints seems to be this "report" from the ], "a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles". Note how this overview of anti-Christian attacks in Europe has the ], an accident if ever there was one, included in the first paragraph, as the main image, again in the body of the report, and in the appendix, each time claiming that it was a "suspicious fire". The remainder of their sources seem equally dubious. ] (]) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*OK I favor a CIR-ban, after reading on my talk page, which shows a complete lack of understanding not just of WP:RS, but of...well, how writing works. ] (]) 15:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::], what ] report are you talking about?? The report I used as reference is form a Christian NGO, here . --] (]) 15:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::You start an based on two sources, the first of which is "Aid to the Church in Need", and their article "EUROPE: Study Reveals about 3,000 Attacks on Christian Churches and Symbols in 2019". I actually looked at which study they mean, and lo and behold, it is the study from the Gatestone Institute linked above. As was rather clear in the article you linked to, which starts "According to research conducted by the Gatestone Institute". ] (]) 15:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			== Basile Morin, Arionstar and FPC ==
	* Support an appropriate topic ban on grounds of RGW. (FWIW I think accusing someone of "utilizing the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks" is absurd, uncollegial, and unconstructive, but not a personal attack in the sense of NPA.) --] (]) 15:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{atop
	* '''Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed/Weak support for heel-cooling general block of at least a few days.''' The original cited comments regarding offense were problematic, but not enough that I would have endorsed a sanction on that basis alone. However the additional context provided regarding other discussions, combined with the party's own comments here, make the level of innate disruption in their approach to the topics in question immediately obvious. That said, the original proposed topic ban scope is unreasonably (arguably unworkably) large, hence the refinement suggested in my !vote header. Also per the header, I would support a more general sanction given the current full head of steam they seem to have on this topic, and the fact that I can't imagine that they are going to immediately lose the sense they are being persecuted as soon as the topic ban goes into effect: indeed, I think it may be in their own best interests (if they want to remain on the project) that they be temporarily prevented from responding to this sanction and given some time to digest the community's opinion of their conduct here, and consider if they can accept it to the extent that they are willing to move on to other areas, without further recriminations against the great Misplaced Pages secularist conspiracy. ''] ]'' 15:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			| result = Everyone has cooled down and agreed to stop with the ]. ] (]/]) 16:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''' for a broad topic ban. My interactions with this user were in the AN/I thread above but then they followed me to my talk page to try to argue even more that Christians are somehow persecuted. They don't understand that youtube videos are not proof of things.--] (]) 15:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			}}
	::Sure they are ], just read this page ]. Those type of comments show nothing but contempt and bias, every religious community in history faced oppression at some point and even today, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. face problems based on location, culture, and so on. To say that Christians face no intolerance or persecution today is an outright bias. --] (]) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::So when was that article last nominated for AFD? When was the last attempt made to remove all of its content?] (]) 16:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{u|E-960}}: My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Christianity did not and never existed. I think ''all'' religion is bad. But I can work with people who disagree with that opinion, and my positions don't lead me to try to right great wrongs, which is where you are right here. You are too close to your passion to see it clearly and I think a time-out is in order. Anyways: Feel free not to reply. I am not interested in arguing with you further. ] (]) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* '''Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed.''' Based on all of this at ANI, its clear they have an axe to grind, and this is not the place to grind it.] (]) 16:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*This the the type of comments I face, but I'm the bad guy:
	{{Quote box|My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Christianity did not and never existed... ] (]) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	How often do you see editors respond with statements like: My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Judaism did not and never existed, or My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if gays did not and never existed. But you can tell a Christian that to their face on Misplaced Pages and it's OK. --] (]) 16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:You poor, poor, put-upon thing.--] (]) 16:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::This is definitely not helping Jorm: please keep your comments confined to constructive purposes and away from sarcastic rejoinders. ''] ]'' 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* This looks to be a case of someone who demands respect for his own belief system (fair enough), but who feels entitled to launch intemperate attacks against the belief systems of anyone who disagrees with him ("Bolsheviks", "cultural Marxists", etc). ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	** You may be right, but On the other hand just look at all the taunting (and Jorm as well as the OP aren’t the only ones) and sniping throughout this thread. And this is by several people who should know better.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	We are not five year olds in a playground. Please stop the sniping.] (]) 16:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::], when I objected to the first series of comments which I though were belittling, I was told that I was being "overly sensitive", so when I responded in kind and made the "bolshevik" comments that action drew this complaint. Which proves my point, when talking about Christianity you can make snide or insensitive comments and it's ok, but the other way around and people are offended. --] (]) 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::E-960, there are other possible explanations here, one of which is that the derision is not being directed at Christianity in most of these interactions, but rather at you--or more specifically your incomplete understanding of our policies on issues such as ], ], ], and ], combined with a tendency to perceive push-back to your proposals as evidence of a nefarious agenda and deep bias against Christians (despite the fact that this project is rich with adherents of that faith). You claim all of Christianity as your personal constituency and I don't think that's particularly justified. One can both have a deep faith in Christian dogma (or be of a different or no faith and still respect it) without having to agree that your specific assertions about particular social forces in particular contexts are correct. Assuming otherwise is a classic ]. ''] ]'' 17:19, 11 August 2020 (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.
	*'''Support''' I rarely participate in discussions here, but E-960 is using unreliable sources in support of a POV based on the ]. "In a conversation at the British Humanist Congress in 2014, Stavrakopoulou suggested that some Christian fundamentalists perceive the advancement of secularism as a threat, and that this may support the idea of a persecution complex." Misplaced Pages should be wary of of religious partisan views. ] (]) 16:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::], but is not ] a point of view as well? You automatically label religious views as partisan, and secularism as the undisputed truth. But, I'm the one that's pushing a POV, because I wrote an statement that Christians in EU face issues such as marginalization (so fundamental of me). --] (]) 16:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{u|E-960}}, secularism is the view that no religion should be privileged. It applies to the Scientology, Christianity, Islam - all religions. As a POV, that's entirely neutral. Secularism is not atheism. There are Christians who advocate secularism. In fact, the Constitution of the United States was written by some of them. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::And, perhaps more to the point here, the ] ''] ]'' 17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::I suggest you put down the shovel.] (]) 17:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	To properly understand the root of E-960 emotional arguments, one has to be religious. I'm an older person and practicing Christian, and I know where all these emotions come from. E-960, please recognize diverse views and opinions, it would be unfortunate if sanctions are imposed, but I can't keep opposing them if you continue arguing with your heart instead of the head. Look, I'm a Christian, and I don't feel oppressed here or in real life. I still hope you will be allowed to step away from the religious topics voluntarily. I believe you need to do that and for a long time.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support broad topic ban with review after 6+ months'''. User is so passionate as to be dismissive of community standards, decorum, and feedback resulting in strings of disruption making any editing acrimonious. This is counter to building an encyclopedia. ] (]) 17:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*<s>Support broad topic ban</s> per nom. (see comment immediately below) ] (]) 18:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	:After re-reading this discussion, and the additional comments which have come in, I now believe that E-960 is totally incapable of editing in a neutral way on a broad variety of subjects, due to his personal beliefs and his extreme excitability, which cannot but influence his edits. I therefore '''support a topic ban on all aspects of religion, politics, and society, broadly construed'''. This !vote should be construed as supporting any proposal which includes its parts, i.e. it is a !vote for a topic ban on religion, a topic ban on politics, and a topic ban on society, if any of those become the consensus. Any and all of those TBans should be broadly construed. The purpose of this is to remove E-960 from any and all areas where his PoV editing will be disruptive to the community.{{pb}}I would also suggest that if a TBan is levied on his by this discussion -- which seems fairly likely -- that E-960 understand that the next step would be a site ban, since we cannot keep just piling on subject area. (]) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed & a short-ish block (1 week)'''. E-960 has progressed from an inability to discern good sources to an extreme battlefield mentality. Badly needs a cool-off period and to keep away from their trigger topics. ] (]) 18:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' There’s a lot of heat on both sides in these discussions and various editors making unnecessarily provocative statements. E should calm down and tone down the language (as should some of the others throwing out lines about “radical Christians oppose democracy” or “slathering at the mouth” but there’s nothing here topic ban worthy. If E deserves one there’s def some others here who do as well.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:You should read my claim in context, he provided the diff for it. About Hungary being led towards ] there is little doubt, I guess. The speech of the Hungarian PM pushing for it became famous.
	*:{{quote|At first, we were fighting against Sovietization. Bolsheviks let us speak our own language, but not what we want. Everything changed. Today we only hear the slogan Poland for Polish people. We got rid of Bolsheviks, but we kept our mutual despise for each other. Now we have an anti-Bolshevism with a Bolshevik face, that's why I am sad... What is nutured inside Poland is a kind of anti-humanism. Our government is supported by the Polish Catholic Church. What does our government tell us? That now comes the «gay pest», which is more or less the same as the «red pest». It is an idiocy which even Ceaușescu could not utter. In Poland, this Bolshevik mentality, a mentality of despise, of superiority, it remained... There is a great madness all over all post-Communist countries. We all think that our own people is noble, innocent, never did any harm unto others. According to this idea we judge those around us. If somebody says that that's not completely true, he/she is regarded as a traitor to the country|Adam Michnik in Stefan Both|Disident polonez legendar, despre România post '89: „Iliescu a salvat țara pentru că n-a ales calea lui Miloșevici“}}
	*:So I think I made clear that it is factually true that Hungary and Poland are led by radicals. At least mainstream Western media see it that way. ] (]) 23:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed''' The user seem incapable of differentiating secularism from Christian persecution. The sources they are pushing have the same issue and then some. They also seem unable to drop the stick.] (]) 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	'''Oppose''' E-960 is using the talk page to discuss their changes and this sanction goes way too far. Certainly with statues going down and churches being vandalized, it's no surprised that this issue is coming onto Misplaced Pages. It's understandable. ] (]) 05:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Yes, I also think the proposed sanctions go too far. They are a reasonable editor, and I'm sure they will learn from this and step away from the topic area voluntarily. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 05:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::This is some new definition of 'reasonable' I am not familiar with? If I saw a single comment from the editor which indicated a willingness to step away from the topic area then I would be happy to change my vote, but there are '''none'''. It is not just here and the talk page of the article; the editor relentlessy persues people onto their talk pages (see the edit history with a good example ) and even on the talk page itself there is zero engagement with the argumetents of other editors just a series of attacks or assertons of being a victim. Your two attempts here to get them to say something conciliatory have both failed. -----] <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::: They actually did here in response to me. I also left them this message on their talk page . Let's see what they say when they come back online.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 06:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::That diff illustrates the problem - firstly we get a link to a pretty nasty far right site with offers to send us more such links, then a statement that they might possibly back off if admins start to behave fairly. Happy to see if that changes when they come back on line -----] <sup>]</sup> 08:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. I'm shaking my head here over how this has all escalated so quickly from "''Those two sources don't satisfy ]''". I think de-escalation from all sides could have helped here, and I can't support a topic ban proposed in the heat of argument. Such a ban might indeed be needed in the coolness of time, but not now, not like this, not in this heat. ] (]) 07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support a topic ban on all aspects of religion, politics, and society, broadly construed''' per Beyond My Ken. Pushing far-right trash as reliable is bad enough, chasing editors to their talk pages, badgering, and attacking is worse. When I read accusations of "Bolshevik" methods, I think of ], not a light accusation.--] (]) 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' the topic ban proposed by the OP. This discussion has become sidetracked but we need to keep our eye on the ball. This is a clear case of ] and {{u|E-960}} has shown no understanding of ] or ]. They have been unwilling to take advice from administrators and have not responded positively to attempts at mediation. Their trenchant views on the subject of Chistianity have led to them to being unwilling or unable to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages in this area.]] 10:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::You were involved in the disagreement with E-960 here that lead to this complaint. I'm just noting this fact for transparency. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 15:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Yes, but I'm not suggesting any response to the user's combative tone and actions, considering the way this thread developed. Let's stick to the core issues. ]] 15:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Well for that matter one of the few "No" voters here namely ] is the only editor on the RfC in the article in question. If you are pointing out one side, then point out the other or none! -----] <sup>]</sup> 16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::: Yes, of course, that should be noted too. Thanks for catching this.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 17:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' after waiting to see how this developed. At first, I had some sympathy that this was a simple misunderstanding that had accelerated, but the toxicity of the behavior just in this discussion (anyone who disagrees is anti-Christian and part of systemic bias), and the speed with which aspersions were cast in the RSN discussion have convinced me that an expectation of the ability to edit neutrally in this area is currently not realistic. ] (]) 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	<u>Comment</u> - E-960 hasn't been active for a day now
	I hope they took this advice thoughtfully and are thinking about what happened here. Please wait with the decision until they come back with the response. I genuinely believe that the sanctions might not be necessary if their answer is satisfactory in view of editors concerned.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. For what is worth, I doubt I share that user's POV, and speaking as someone who has for many years been a strong proponent of enforcing CIV/AGF and such, I don't see anything here worth even a warning. I read the three diffs shown by the OP and... what, really? Many, many others here act much worse and don't even get a warning. Or, at the very least, they get warnings first, then bans. A ''warning'' might be reasonable, but jumping straight to a topic ban? Ugh, no. PS. If there is 'worse', please do me a favor and reply to me here with diffs that show more substantive problems than the three cited by the OP. TIA. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 06:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support wide topic ban'''. Pushing extreme right videos and sources, attacking users, just reading this thread I'm holding my head.--] (]) 12:47, 14 August 2020 (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:
	===Voluntary topic ban===
			* '''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 ])
	:As recommended by ], I can agree to voluntarily stay away from editing topics related to Religion for a prolonged period of time, as a way to avoid further unnecessary escalations. Also, I can admit that the discussion took an unnecessarily intense tone, which in turn brought a significant level of disruption to the overall discussion process. Having said that, I would also like to add that such bursts of heated exchanges are not a one way street, and are a result of dismissive or demeaning comments from the other side as well, as in this situation, where instead of proving constructive commentary and input, some editors voiced their personal opinions on the matter of Christianity. With that, I will not make any further comments. --] (]) 11:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			Not only is this failing to ], it's also completely irrelevant to a process involving images. It's sort of like telling people to oppose an FAC because they haven't given good reviews. I would have left this here, until another user (Basile Morin), engaged in Wikihounding, decided to directly attack me and ArionStar instead of constructively responding to my concerns. What really damns me is , in full. I was struck with the flu, so was unable to respond, but I think I'll just bring it directly here, seeing how this isn't the first time this has happened:
	I don't know how you folks feel about it, but I'm happy with E-960 announcement. It's unfortunate that they didn't deliver this statement earlier, but please keep in mind that many comments of other users only poured gasoline to a fire. Comments such as this one (''<u>You poor, poor, put-upon thing</u>'') certainly didn't help... I hope we can close this with a specific note that E-960 promised to stay away from Religion-related topics. I'm sure they will keep the promise, and I will be happy to steer E-960 in another direction if they ever come too close to the above topic in the future. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 19:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{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 am okay with this; their editing and talk-page behavior w.r.t. other topics did not strike me as problematic when I looked at their edit history. --] (]) 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	: I haven't voted above, but I am of the opinion that 'voluntary' tbans are useless because they are effectively unenforceable without mountains of more conversation and debates to whether or not it's enforceable. If the user truly agrees to step away from the content, then they should have no problem just accepting the enforced TBAN instead. ] (]) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Re-affirming support for imposed TBAN''' - I don't want to be the curmudgeon in the room, but this strikes me as not at all sufficient. That GCB is happy with it is meaningless, since she's been trying to get E-960 off the hook this entire time. That E-960 says they'll stay away from articles about religion is simply not enough - their PoV is '''''extremely strong''''' and their excessive responses are easily triggered. This is obviously going to effect their editing of politics articles (especially European politics), and other articles about societal issues.{{pb}}There is already sufficient consensus above to impose a topic ban of some sort, and I would suggest that those who !voted for such a ban should be allowed to either re-affirm their support for it in this new circumstance, or say that they're OK with E-960's voluntary TB. Me, I don't think it's nearly enough. ] (]) 23:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::@] and ] I'm just trying to help, and I voluntarily offered to guide E-960, so frictions like this don't emerge anymore. I have personal experience as far as Topic Bans; they sometimes hardly serve good and are being weaponized. This creates only more disturbances and consumes valuable administrative time. Administrators have so much on their plates going through all the cases; I can only praise them for all these challenging tasks they have to perform. I would oppose a Topic Ban imposed on anyone who has prospects of adjusting their behaviour voluntarily. I believe that E-960 is one of those editors who will follow our recommendations, and I don't think we will have any problems in this area with them anymore.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 23:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Your help has come primarily in advice to E-960 on how to avoid having a topic ban placed on them in the current circumstances, in this discussion, rather than advice on how to edit in the future in such a way that other editors don't feel the need to place a topic ban on them. The former is useful to the editor, the latter is useful to the project.{{pb}}I'm glad that you have such confidence in E-960, I'm afraid that I see no reason to share in that. ] (]) 00:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with BMK here. I see a user now saying whatever he can to get out of a sanction, at the behest of you, GCB. That doesn't instill confidence that they're not just going back to behaving like above with a new perceived slight. What does is if the user agrees their behavior was problematic and accept the tban. ] (]) 00:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::They didn't fully receive my advice right away, as you guys can probably notice reading through the conversation, but after I advised them to sleep it over, rethink everything, they seem to understand now what really happened, and seem to follow my guidance. That's why I also believe they can be granted this leniency one time. I recognize your concerns, but I think that E-960 is one of those editors who might be given this one-time kindness from the community. I don't think they will comment here anymore (will you ]? Is there anything you want to add to assure Ken and Valeince that you understood your mistakes and you will not repeat them?) - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 00:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	* '''Absolutely no way'''. Re-affirm support for imposed topic ban. Some folk have commented on snark above, and those people obviously have not been subject to E-960's attentions individually. My expression of my opinion about religion was ''mild'' and his reaction was to shout aggrieved. My talk page is a good example of how this user behaves and how they will continue to behave in this topic area.--] (]) 03:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::@] I didn't see this earlier ...yea...not impressed. I understand more the concerns fellow editors have. I still believe that E-960 has learned from this experience, but if I'm mistaken and the community decides to impose a formal topic ban, I would like to urge the closing administrator to word this topic ban very clearly, so it is not open for interpretations. This will prevent possible weaponization of the ban, and it will guide the recipient precisely what direction to follow.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 05:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Reaffirm community imposed topic ban''', per Valeince and Beyond my Ken. I'm not impressed with {{u|GizzyCatBella}} calling out what was an understandable response (petrol on fire - really?) or in effect coaching someone to avoid a ban without really changing their behaviour; the response starting with "Having said that ..." indicates to me that E-960 has not really taken on board the issue. -----] <sup>]</sup> 05:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Reaffirm''' support for topic ban. E-960 deserves some credit for stepping down from their high horse, and perhaps this could be taken into account in a review of any topic ban after maybe six months. In other circumstances they could be looking at a temporary block so a TBAN is its self a compromise. ]] 05:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	* '''Support imposed TBAN''' per BMK and Snowded. ] (]) 08:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	* '''Formal TBAN'''. If he keeps his promise to step away then he'll be able to appeal in the future.--] (]) 12:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support formal TBAN''' per BMK ''very broadly defined''. -] ] 12:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Support self imposed TBAN''' Though I do fail to see why they just can't stay away rather then as an offer to avoid a formal TBAN. With one proviso, if they breach it just once it escalates into an automatic formal TABN.] (]) 14:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			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>
	== Personal attack by Supolsanko==
			: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 ===
	is pretty blatant and uncalled for personal attack. Supolsanko has claimed another editor is a paid editor, but they have not provided any evidence thus far. They also seem to be operating multiple accounts based on their first post.] (]) 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* Having looked at their 4 (four) edits so far, my initial thought is to simply block them as NOTHERE. Their story at the TeaHouse doesn't ring true to me at all. Whether the other editor is a paid one is something we can work out without this editor making personal attacks on others and demanding we "take down" an editor. ] 18:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* When someone writes both {{tq|I have never seen a dumbest human like your bad self}} and {{tq|I have gone through all your articles and have seen that you a bad writer}} in the same paragraph, it's safe to assume that they are either trolling or incompetent. ] (]) 18:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*There's also {{diff3|972025582|this screed}} on Lapablo's user talk. Whatever Supolsanko thinks or alleges may have happened, they have failed to convince anyone on the merits of their argument and has instead decided PA are the way to achieve their goals. NOTHERE is an apt summary, I feel. ] ] ] 18:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	**I agree with all of the above. Indef'd the user, and I will say my socky sense is tingling as well. ] (]) 18:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*An indef per ] & ] seems to be the most plausible course of action here. Per unsubstantiated attack shrouded in animosity on {{u|Lapablo}} & attack on {{u|Lapablo}} & {{u|Smartse}}. We can see they definitely aren’t here to build an encyclopedia. ''']''' 19:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	**Already done Celestina, took care of that about an hour ago. ] (]) 20:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::@{{u|RickinBaltimore}} Brilliant! ''']''' 00:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*Switching gears here as I just came from {{user|Lapablo}}'s user page. Catching my breath and thinking out what to say. In short, there's userboxen from my The pitbull one I made myself. {{ping|Lapablo}}, ''Enschuldigen, sprechen Sie Deutsch''? Don't know f it's worth mentioning here. Oh, wait did. --<b>] ]</b> 20:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*Also, ''Mein Hertz schlägt in der linken Brust. '' He also has an ''Awesome Wikipedian'' userbox, which I find dubious. --<b>] ]</b> 20:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			(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: ].)
	== ] reported by ] ==
			Now, concerning ArionStar:
	{{moved from|]|2=] (]) 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|ArionStar}}
	*{{vandal|Александр Мотин}} &ndash; On {{No redirect|:COVID-19 vaccine}}: vandalism after final warning. User is a Russian propagandist. ] (]) 14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC) <!-- PBMarked -->
			See:
	:*'''Note''': Александр Мотин is currently partial blocked. ] (]) 14:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			#]
	::*'''Further note:''' user has a long history of disruptive editing and is continuing to edit-war on the Russian vaccine article, ], spreading Russian government propaganda on a vaccine unassessed by the world scientific community. Recommend indefinite block. ] (]) 15:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
			#] (now ])
	* <s>'''Boomerang''': ]. Please explain this to the reporter. --] (]) 20:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)</s>--] (]) 13:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			#] (clear attack against me)
	*That's not a personal attack and your were edit warring. I have partial blocked on this article as well as the last one. Please review and undue if I got it wrong. Having a minor health challenge. Signing off. --<b>] ]</b> 20:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* {{ping|Ymblanter}} protected the other disputed article. --<b>] ]</b> 20:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*Un partial blocked on Gam-COVID-Vac. ALready stopped. --<b>] ]</b> 20:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* {{re|Deepfriedokra}} ].--] (]) 20:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* {{re|Deepfriedokra}} Also he calls me a "Russian propagandist" . He should be blocked for a personal attack. But instead you blocked me? Interesting... --] (]) 20:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:{{yo|Александр Мотин}} Apologies. {can't catch my breath.) {{ping|Zefr}} They have a point. I;m afraid you will need to back that up or withdraw it and apologize. --<b>] ]</b> 21:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::Sorry, y'all. I can't participate. Again aplogies. Not enugh oxygen to brain. --<b>] ]</b> 21:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::: {{re|Deepfriedokra}} No problem since you unblocked me right away.--] (]) 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:::::Thanks, you are most gracious. --<b>] ]</b> 22:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* The talk page of the user shows that since the previous (partial) block for persistent disruptive editing and POV pushing (they were persistently added Russian propaganda into the article) they have leaned virtually nothing and continue disruptive editing. They were edit-warring reverting the addition of a photo by another user (discussion in Russian) and concluded the discussion saying that this other user "has too short hands" to get them blocked. They spent the whole day today trying to add info into Misplaced Pages about the Russian vaccine and edit-warred against Zefr, ignored their warnings, but were not using sources of acceptable standards and never added info that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested (thus again adding pure propaganda). They have been indefinitely blocked from the Russian Misplaced Pages for exactly this behavior. When other users come to them with the warning they pretend they do not understand what is wrong with their edits. They do have some positive contribution, which typically looks like (note that the article contained some, probably good-faith, mistakes which I had to correct). On my opinion, the sooner this user get a site ban, the less time it will cost the community. This is becoming an incredible time sink.--] (]) 21:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* I am not at all surprised by this one-sided and biased attitude of this Russian administrator (Ymblanter), since he has already expressed biased opinions about Wikimedia RU Chapter as I am one of the founders → Question 10: ]. There is a rather ambiguous assessment of his activities in the Russian Misplaced Pages. In such a situation it is impossible to consider his statements objective.--] (]) 21:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* Speaking about "too short hands", this administrator again continues to express his bias against me because the user whom I replied to, wrote me a message with a sneer in the context of my request to the Russian Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee which has not yet been resolved for almost a year.--] (]) 21:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*This is a bit bizarre. The information was sourced to the Russian Ministry of Health's official website, saying that a Russian COVID vaccine had been issued a "registration certification" by the Ministry, which is exactly what the text said. If that's a bit unclear, simply says the vaccine was "approved". Certainly seems like reliably-sourced, uncontentious, pertinent information that said vaccine ''exists'' and was "registered". The text made no additional claims that weren't verified. Zefr is reverting because we "can't trust Russian information" (a sweeping claim he's not authorized to enforce), falsely demanding the user "discuss on talk page first to gain consensus", which is not a valid reason to revert, says "sources are unreliable" without articulating specific objections, and claims "there are no peer-reviewed scientific reports to affirm safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy", when no such content is being added to the article, and calling the user a Russian propagandist, simply for including an extremely basic claim which is sourced to the Russian Ministry of Health. That's clear disruptive editing, as is intentionally reporting them as a vandal. They also have 2 blocks for edit warring since 2019, one being earlier this year. The sources in the ] confirm that the vaccine exists and was approved, with scientists skeptical as to its safety and efficacy. So, it's a potentially-dubious vaccine, though a real, approved vaccine nonetheless that's covered in reliable sources, including English sources. The simple claim that it exists is verifiable. The dubiousness is verifiable, so ''include it''. But if the Russian government's claims about the vaccine cannot be trusted or are "propaganda", the user did not insert any information about those claims. Even if you suspect that the user is a pro-Russia POV-pusher, they objectively didn't do anything wrong here, other than edit war against a user who's disruptively stonewalling their edits. Far more inclined to block the filer for wanton disruption, personal attacks and edit warring based on the reported incident. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:Indeed. We need to look at the ] cast by ]]. That needs to be substantiated or withdrawn. With an apology. Look. higher up-- It's easy. --<b>] ]</b> 22:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	* {{u|Zefr}} is a valued editor who does a lot of good work in keeping "woo" out of our articles. {{u|Александр Мотин}} is keenly interested in Russia-related topics, but is not experienced in medical topics. I think that both have been zealous in their approach to ], from different perspectives. I trust Zefr to tone down their comments when asked, and I've invested some time in explaining to Александр Мотин the standards needed for our medical content. I don't believe any action is necessary here, especially as so many eyes are on the articles right now. Cheers --] (]) 22:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:Meh. The WMF would do well to invest in a clinical psychologist to help coach people in ] and ]. --<b>] ]</b> 23:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I can think of more than one editor who were so driven to combat unscientific information that they crossed into disruptive editing territory and are no longer allowed on this site. These editors are indeed valuable, and I'm not keen on aggressively chasing them off. However in this case Zefr achieved nothing "valuable" or even constructive in this incident. Like I said, even if the user was problematic elsewhere, he was doing nothing wrong here, and Zefr let his perception of the editor drive him to wage a disruptive edit war without any sound logical or policy-based reasoning. He was purely disruptive, and then he filed a frivolous report, trying to get the editor blocked even though they had done nothing wrong. It's pretty significantly troubling. So I'm ''also'' not keen on simply inventing a resolution for him because of the good work he's otherwise done. I'm more than happy to accept a voluntary resolution if Zefr is willing to provide one. I understand people can get frustrated. Not asking a lot here, not asking Zefr to grovel, however it needs to go a bit beyond a euphemized "tone it down". Zefr is in blockable territory right now and if we're going to let him off scot-free he ''does'' need to offer a voluntary resolution coming from himself, acknowledging that he understands where he went wrong and that he will not repeat these issues going forward. He has already been asked to reply here. I hope we can resolve this amicably, otherwise a formal warning will need to go on the record at the utmost minimum. Unfortunately, based on the below content, Zefr seems unconcerned about these serious issues and hellbent on waging a crusade. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*The complaint was made against the user because of edit warring on the ] article over unscientific content and sources that can only be called Russian political propaganda, as confirmed by numerous interviews of scientists published in the worldwide news today (discussed in sources of the second lede paragraph here, ]). {{u|Александр Мотин}} claims Russian residence on their user page. The Russian government propaganda on the COVID-19 vaccine and ] articles has been removed and . While the Gam-COVID-Vac candidate can be affirmed to exist (), its "registration" by Russia is unacceptable to the world vaccine community, its promotion on Misplaced Pages as a valid vaccine should be eliminated, and the person who promotes the propaganda should be penalized. ] (]) 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
	*As an editor on the vaccine article, I'm inclined to agree with Swarm - while the Russian vaccine has its skeptics (I being one of them), it is nonetheless a real, registered (in Russia) vaccine that has had significant coverage in ]. To call it "propaganda" like Zefr has done implies that it doesn't exist and it is a ] opinion. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*Some editors above are losing sight of what this ANI was about: by warring and using only Russian sources, {{u|Александр Мотин}} was trying to insert unscientific content from an unreliable source into the ] article. The majority of news coverage on 11 August about the Russian vaccine was negative, if not outright rejected, by vaccine experts around the world (as a simple Google search will show). I was defending the article's veracity and the global scientific consensus by rejecting the edit, then simply reported the persistently warring editor in the usual way to AIV (it was moved here by ToBeFree). The word "propaganda" for the Russian vaccine announcement was used by and , among others. Sure, the vaccine exists and , but there is insufficient scientific confirmation to treat the Russian vaccine as "approved" by world vaccine experts (the required process in a pandemic), nor is it acceptable for the article. ] (]) 02:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Er, he didn't insert anything unscientific into the article. He merely inserted the uncontentious claim that a Russian vaccine had been registered. There was no propaganda involved, no claim that the vaccine was supported by world vaccine experts, none of the Russian government's claims that the vaccine was safe or effective, no dubious info, no unsourced info, no unverifiable info, no "propaganda". Your personal view that any mention of the vaccine should be eliminated with extreme prejudice is, while good intentioned, irrelevant. You have no consensus, no policy to support you. This is IDONTLIKEIT POV-pushing. Get a consensus to validate your view, but until then, ] is encouraged as a matter of policy, and, at face value, there's nothing wrong with the content you're disputing. There may be a ''lot'' wrong with the vaccine, but that doesn't translate into the automatic censorship of any mention of it, and it certainly doesn't justify your out-of-control disruptive editing. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::: I think you are mistaken in the big picture, but to prove or disprove this I will need to carefully check the diffs and the referenced sources. It will take some time, but I will be back soon in any case.--] (]) 06:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::: Ok, I am afraid I have confirmed my picture. I am now talking only about Александр Мотин, not about Zefr. What reliable sources essentially reported yesterday was that (i) the Russian government announced the creation of the vaccine (specifically, "registered the vaccine" whatever it means) and (ii) that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested, the trials are at this point not up to standards, and there have been no confirmation that the vaccine actually works. Now, is the version Александр Мотин left the newly created article in, the next significant edit came only 100 minutes later, when another user added criticism about the trials. (i) is obviously there, (ii) is essentially not. This version has one sentence which says that the clinical reports have not yet been published, apart from this, sold as a minor technical detail, the version makes a full impression that the vaccine is there up and working. This is despite the fact that sources 3, 4, 9, and 10 go into some details about the shortcomings of the trials, and sources 1, 2, and 6 which do not mention these shortcomings would never stand ]: 2 is a press release, 6 is a news agency run by the Russian government, and 1 is a propaganda source which may publish reliable stuff but certainly is not supposed to be critical against the government. This means that Александр Мотин, being aware from the cited sources that the vaccine has not been tested up to standards, deliberately decided not to add this info into the article. This is significant violation of ] aka propaganda. (And I do not quite understand their motivation either, it is clear that this is a high-profile topic, and other users, who are way more critical towards the Russian government, would check the sources anyway). In parallel, they were edit-warring with Zefr at ] trying to add (i) but not (ii) to the lede. So whatever blockable or not but I would certainly not call the actions of Александр Мотин perfect.--] (]) 07:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::It is "an incredible time sink" to read your biased view of the situation since I added criticism upon starting the article .--] (]) 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	* I became aware of this topic from reading about alarm from the WHO and others that a vaccine was being promoted with Russia in a "reckless and unethical" way. Looking at the former state of the article you wouldn't have though there were any issues, and some aspects were concerning. Calling this in Misplaced Pages's voice the "world's first registered ]" is meaningless or untrue (in the context of "the world"), since every vaccine in development is "registered". Including Putin's anecdote about how effective the vaccine was on his daughter is effectively using an unreliable source to imply a health effect (even if this were a case report formally published in a journal, it would be unreliable for medical claims). And stating in Misplaced Pages's voice that the vaccine "does not have any side effects" is problematic. ] (]) 07:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*: {{re|Alexbrn}} AFAIU, "registered" means approved for use or (and) allowed for (mass) production and use since it has certificate of state registration. In this context, it is not meaningless. Maybe it needs to be rephrased.--] (]) 07:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::Maybe, but that is a very peculiar usage, and the only context of the edit you <u>actually made</u> was "the world". This is not the first world-registered vaccine (not that such a concept is meaningful, unless you mean WHO-approved); neither was it the first vaccine to be registered nationally for trials. As used, the phrase is, yes, rather propaganda-like. ] (]) 07:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::: "''the only context of the edit you actually made was "the world"''" – <u>not me</u> but RS.--] (]) 08:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::::While kremlin.ru is no doubt ''reliable'' for the Kremlin's position, uncritically relaying it in Misplaced Pages's voice was your editing decision. You don't think that is problematic? ] (]) 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:::::There were lots of RS in the article saying "in the world" and not only Kremlin.ru. Stop demonizing me and my edits. ]--] (]) 09:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	* {{comment}} <s>I still insist on blocking {{U|Zefr}} for ] and ]--] (]) 08:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)</s> I withdraw my request because I think it was more likely motivated as emotional response and I believe that despite the fact that my opponent was too emotional, we will be able to find a common language based on Misplaced Pages rules since, furthermore, {{u|RexxS}} says that my opponent is a valued editor. --] (]) 13:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	* Note I have reported Александр Мотин at AN3 for edit-warring. ] (]) 09:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*: This illuminating discussion is best linked here directly: ]--] (]) 11:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::I have closed the edit warring complaint: ]. ] has agreed not to edit the ] article for a week. ] (]) 16:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			My talk page also was "attacked" with (, , , , ).
	== Dispute about Pashtun tribes involving ] ==
			]. These , with left to the user (),
	*<small>Original title was: {{green|], ] and various IPs (Seem to be one person) are claiming that ] belong to ] and ] tribe using unverifiable sources and claiming to be ]'s "associate"}}</small>
			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:
	], ] and various IPs (Seem to be one person) are claiming that ] belong to ] and ] tribe using unverifiable sources (Please see this https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#It_has_been_claimed_by_an_editor_that_the_following_sources_mention_that_Rahimuddin_Khan_belonged_to_an_ethnic_Pathan_family_whose_lineage_traces_them_to_the_Afridi_and_Kheshgi_tribes) as well as claiming to be ]'s .
			#]
			#].
			Exhausting. There have been a lot of , on Commons. Best regards -- ] (]) 19:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Regarding me being “mad about my failed nom”, that is casting serious ]. I engaged because I saw what looked like uncivil behavior, '''not''' because one of my nominations failed. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Previously, the very same strategy was used at ] (There it was claimed that the editor is a or of ]) and now it is being used at ]. The same tactic is also being used at ] with another twist.
			::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)
	The sole purpose of the editor(s) seems to "prove" and push the POV that they are all ]: ] (using unverifiable sources) and ] (There are some verifiable sources) belonged to ] and ] tribes while ] is also a ] (using unverifiable sources again: first using a which was prepared by a "big shot" and now using another unverifiable source).
			:::"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'''
	Please see , , , and for diffs. Please look into that. Thank you. <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Arial">&nbsp;'''McKhan'''&nbsp;</font></span>&nbsp;<sup>'''(])'''</sup> 00:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			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:
	] is canvassing for support. Please see and . Thank you.<span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Arial">&nbsp;'''McKhan'''&nbsp;</font></span>&nbsp;<sup>'''(])'''</sup>
			{{xt|"(a) Arionstar, whether you're doing it as a peace offering or to needle someone, it would be a good idea not to nominate photos taken by people you've been in conflict with on Commons FWIW. If your goal is to eventually be unblocked on Commons, constructive contributions here can help, but you'll have to stop socking over there of course. (b) Basile/Charles, enwp FPC folks probably know, at this point, that Arionstar was blocked on Commons. It's probably safe to keep his noms focused on content at this point unless you want to open a thread here with evidence of behavioral problems on enwp."}}
			I understand that my approach was not the most tactful, sorry. I can nevertheless prove that the approach was 100% healthy and intended to help Misplaced Pages.
			I have absolutely no problem with ArionStar contributing constructively to the development of the encyclopedia (if that is really his intention). However, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that from another user is in my humble opinion far from being as the other imagines. This is perhaps a most important point.
	You are tagging/mentioning me in various pages accusing me of sock-puppetry and are threatening to block my account and then some.
			The last thing I claim is the need for ArionStar to immediately and permanently stop using unproductive puppets. Neither elsewhere nor here. See ] '''"Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts'''.
			I noticed that after self-imposing a "wikibreak" they reverted another user to my own talk page, thus adding to the annoying noise. I would therefore be grateful if ArionStar would never again try to get in touch through this channel. I need peace and concentration.
	Firstly, I have no relations with this user ].
			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)
	Secondly, I can see you have vandalized more articles related to Pashtuns by constantly pushing your POV and claiming that they are not sourced or verifiable, which is entirely the contrary as your assertions are subsequently disproved.
			:In addition, I'll ignore any report about me coming from you here on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	The user ] is not the first. You have always come to this predicament to threaten to block users (some examples are ] and ]) in order to pursue your own agenda, before you even want to reach a consensus with them on talk pages. This is against Misplaced Pages's Guidelines. I can vouch for this based on my own experience with you and of many others as well. But you insist.
			{{abot}}
			== Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza ==
	I will talk to a couple senior representatives on Misplaced Pages and will apprise them of the situation regarding your vandalism and disruptive editing. I will file a full report on you soon. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}}
			*{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}}
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
			{{u|Religião, Política e Futebol}} and {{u|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} have both been edit warring at ] over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.
	:*Why isn't ] responding who made the recent to ]?
	:*Why is ] responding on the behalf of ]?
	:*The connection between ] and ] is based upon (i.e. ''"As I have stated before I am an associate of Mr. Khan...."''), and . As per and the , I don't recall ] ever stated before that ] is '''but''' ] definitely stated being an and . Finally, it is quite obvious that both ids, ] and ], along with IPv6 addresses, are pushing a specific POV (i.e. agenda) of ] (two verifiable sources were provided eventually) and ] being ] and ]. A CU request can reveal more.
	:*A consensus was never sought. A "leverage" of being an and of ] and ] has been attempted to use a couple of times. When that didn't work then unverifiable sources were used with :
			Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. ] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::* ''"I'm a '''fellow Pashtun''' and Misplaced Pages user and just want to ask you for '''assistance''' in a matter. You are aware that this user McKhan has been involved in '''vandalising Pashtun articles."''''' and
			:Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::* ''"As you and I know both know it's very difficult to find '''"Open Sources"''' to fullfill '''our ancestral history''' but we still manage to get sources and have the '''hard copies''' with ourselves."''
			::I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. ] (]) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. ] (]) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::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)
			:::{{re|Sundayclose}} Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says, {{tq|This complaint is not about the content directly}}. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. ] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. ] (]) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*There have been numerous edits to the ] article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits.
	::on the trail of canvassing for support.
			*Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of '''information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family'''.
			**The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP {{u|94.63.205.236}}. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
			**{{ping|Sundayclose}} Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
			**During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, {{u|74.12.250.57}}, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, {{u|2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803}}, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
			**The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
			**On 10 January, {{ping|Religião, Política e Futebol}} made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
			**Another IP, {{u|2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40}}, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
			**On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
			**On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
			**Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
			**On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
			**Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
			**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
			*In regards to '''the mention of Baena's suicide''', this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
			**{{ping|DiaMali}} did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
			**Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
			**The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when {{ping|Ibeaa}} removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
			**On 7 January, IP {{u|2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196}} adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
			**The next user to re-add the info was {{ping|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
			**The IP {{u|2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8}} removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
			**{{ping|Sundayclose}} reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
			**Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
			**Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing {{tq|committed suicide}} for the first time in this edit, which IP {{u|50.71.82.63}} fixed. Diff:
			**Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information ''five times each'', no edit reasons in sight.
			***Zander: (above 1), , , ,
			***Ibeaa: , , , ,
			**I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
			**Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
			**On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
			**Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
			**Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
			**Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is {{tq|accurate and properly sourced}}. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the ] article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff:
			**Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
			**Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. ].
			***I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
			**After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
			**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
			**Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem {{tq|vital enough}} to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:
			*] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Following is a detailed response about the sources used by from the pertinent team:
			: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)
	::"@]: '''''As to the first,''' if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Misplaced Pages, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.'<nowiki/>'' '''Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on.''' '''As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Misplaced Pages articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Misplaced Pages that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),<nowiki>'''</nowiki>''' ''I would respectfully submit that there is no need for any volunteer to waste their time trying to get ahold of this resource. Besides, no library knowingly acquires such books, and to the extent that a national library holds a deposit copy, these are generally more difficult to obtain than "ordinary" books. Again, I see no point in pursuing this request. Best, — ] (]) 12:45 pm, Today (UTC−7)"''
			::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)
			== Death threats by 2.98.176.93 ==
	:: Source: ].
			{{atop
			| status = BLOCKED
	::<span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Arial">&nbsp;'''McKhan'''&nbsp;</font></span>&nbsp;<sup>'''(])'''</sup> 17:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)		| result = Blocked and TPA revoked, nothing further. {{nac}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			{{userlinks|2.98.176.93}} Left a death threat {{diff||1270338492|1270334632|here - diff}}<br />
			] (]) 02:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Note: 30 day block by {{user|Bbb23}} ] (]) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Death threat left after block. Talk page access? ] (]) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*TPA removed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think {{tl|Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. ] (]) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::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 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)
			:::::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)
			{{abot}}
			== Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 ==
	Hello Administrator,
			*{{userlinks|Manannan67}}
			] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ),
			most recently , when I discovered a they placed on . The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did one early warning from the talk page. ] (]) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			: The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to ] which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. ] (]) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	Before anything else, I would like to start off by pointing out that what this User ] has told you is absolutely flawed. The edits made to the following articles are of very trivial importance. The main issue is about how this User keeps Pushing his POV and agenda across by deleting sourced material and mainly having a biased opinion of subjects that are Pashtun related. I don't understand how Misplaced Pages allows this User to stay active as what he is doing is completely against Misplaced Pages's Guidelines.
			::See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to ]. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. ] (]) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." ] (]) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. ] (]) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Naniwoofg ==
	I want to start off by addressing McKhan's accusation of an issue regarding my use of sock-puppetry.
			{{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)
	], ] and various IPs (Seem to be one person) are claiming that ] belong to ] and ] tribe using unverifiable sources (Please see this https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#It_has_been_claimed_by_an_editor_that_the_following_sources_mention_that_Rahimuddin_Khan_belonged_to_an_ethnic_Pathan_family_whose_lineage_traces_them_to_the_Afridi_and_Kheshgi_tribes) as well as claiming to be ]'s .
			: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)
	I want to attest that the IPv6 Address that was used in editing was definitely me. I didn't log in to my account during the edit. However, from that one edit, the User accuses me of sock-puppetry in relation to this User ] by basing it on an allegation you can see below:
			:'''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)
			==Okvishal and years of self promotion ==
	The connection between ] and ] is based upon (i.e. ''"As I have stated before I am an associate of Mr. Khan...."''), and . As per and the , I don't recall ] ever stated before that ] is '''but''' ] definitely stated being an and . Finally, it is quite obvious that both ids, ] and ], along with IPv6 addresses, are pushing a specific POV (i.e. agenda) of ] (two verifiable sources were provided eventually) and ] being ] and ]. A CU request can reveal more
			{{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)}}
			{{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)
			: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) ==
	In response to this claim where the User says he doesn't recall me stating I'm an associate is utterly false. If you see in the I had clearly stated '''Not sure who you're referring to. Maybe he was someone in our cabinet because I myself was an advisor to Rahimuddin Khan during his political career. I assume he took the onus to add material but with no sources whatsoever. PashtunTribal548 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC).'''
			*{{userlinks|Cherkash}}
	McKhan himself had deleted the statement which evidently contradicts his claim "I don't recall ] ever stated before that ] is ." He has used that tactic as a basis to declare me a sock-puppet of a fellow user ] and by filing requests concerning subjects of no consequence.
			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.
	As you can see here, one of his requests were disregarded:
	::"@]: '''''As to the first,''' if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Misplaced Pages, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.'<nowiki/>'' '''Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on.''' '''As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Misplaced Pages articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Misplaced Pages that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),<nowiki>'''</nowiki>''' ''I would respectfully submit that there is no need for any volunteer to waste their time trying to get ahold of this resource. Besides, no library knowingly acquires such books, and to the extent that a national library holds a deposit copy, these are generally more difficult to obtain than "ordinary" books. Again, I see no point in pursuing this request. Best, — ] (]) 12:45 pm, Today (UTC−7)"'' :: Source: ].
			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
	If you go to the ] article, you can clearly see the User uses the exact same reason for reversion like he did in the ] article by saying "That source is NOT an open source. Nobody knows what is inside or what page number is that. Feel welcome to add back in once you have got a verifiable source. Reverted." The edit cites the correct sources that support the previous assertions and once again the User has been disproved as he previously was in the ] article.
			They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.
	If you check this User's history of contributions, you can see he's always entering an article to start an edit war, trying to put his point across by vandalizing the article with disruptive editing, making it some kind of a game.
			Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: ,
			The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ].
	Furthermore, the points I've specified clearly deduces that the user has a personal agenda here, evidently either he's biased against Pashtuns or is doing it for the fun of it by continuously trying to push his POV via disruptive editing. I still can't fathom how Misplaced Pages can allow such behavior to carry on without being unnoticed. When even disproved on such minor issues, the User is so desperate to push his POV across by going so far as to request blocks inimical to fellow users. I strongly urge the Administrators of Misplaced Pages to take serious action against this user, in order to refrain him from vandalizing any additional articles. Thank you.
			I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content.
	:*''"Za hum ] yum. Taso ta ] darzi?"'' Translation: ''"I am also a ]. Do you speak ]?"'' A question which I have asked ] and on his trail for canvassing. As a ], how can I have an agenda against the ]? That's just an absurd assumption.
			] (]) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? ] (]) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the ], e.g. about normalising ], and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in ].
			::I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via ''de facto'' statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often ], which I cannot even comment on. ] (]) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Here is a link to the last time this was raised here.
			:::The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine).
			:::I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that {{User|Unas964}} should adhere to ] while {{user|Cherkash}} needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.] (]) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? ] (]) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith ] (]) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. ] (]) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Out}}UN Resolutions are not Misplaced Pages guidelines. They're not even binding for the countries involved, let alone Misplaced Pages. UN Resolutions do not recognize Taiwan nor Israeli current borders, yet we recognize their independence and their ''de facto'' territories in out articles. ''De jure'', there's no Taiwan, and Israel is still at war with Iraq since 1947. ''De jure'', the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Do we care? Misplaced Pages focuses on facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world, not bound by temporary laws made by temporary entities which often don't even recognize each other: according to Bhutan, ''de jure'' there's no Croatia; according to Greece, there's no Northern Cyprus; according to Serbia, there's no Kosovo; according to the UN, there's no Taiwan... should we follow them? Of course not. You're free to be pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, as long as you stick to facts. ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. ] (]) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Under the light of edit histories of ], ] and other IPv6 addresses, this statement, "The edits made to the following articles are of very trivial importance", is categorically incorrect as all of them have been pushing a specific POV (i.e. agenda) of ] (two verifiable sources were provided eventually) and ] being ] and ].
			::{{re|Simonm223}} Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their ''de facto'' state. ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a ''fact'' that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a ''fact'' that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes.
			:::Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map.
			:::As a corollary it is ''in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals'' to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @] - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @] has seriously failed to ] by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. ] (]) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{re|Simonm223}} I '''don't''' {{tq|have the terms backward there}}. I literally stated that {{tq|''De jure'', there's no Taiwan}}, and also what I meant for {{tq|facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world}}. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires ]. // and no, '''it is not''' {{tq|a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine}}, as ''de jure'' {{tq|the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union}}, as I had already wrote, because ''de jure'' the ] didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had ''de facto''. Do better. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. ] (]) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and ]. In theory, that does not align with ], since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the ] the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. ] (]) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::This is fast reaching ] territory. ] (]) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We also have ]. ] (]) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. ). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the ], ], ] and ] by some ''de facto laws''. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only ], ] and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. ]). That renders ''de facto maps'' a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality.
			:Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of ] and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. ] (]) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|''de facto laws''}}? You're way too confused. {{langnf|la|de jure|by (some country's) law}} is the total opposite of {{langnf|la|de facto|by facts, in reality}}. That's the point. Nice list of stuff tho. Have fun. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, ]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (],] etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some ''consensus'' or ''de facto bodrers'' pretexts, then indeed it has no sense.
			*:If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. ] (]) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' I'm a bit concerned that {{U|Unas964}} has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes , regarding ] "pro-Russian attacks." at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a ] mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to ] was reverted with an edit summary of - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. ] (]) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. ] (]) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Proposal - short duration block for Unas964===
	:*My request about verifying the unverified sources wasn't "disregarded". To the contrary, ] made it clear that '''''As to the first,''' if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Misplaced Pages, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.'<nowiki/>'' '''Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on.''' '''As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Misplaced Pages articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Misplaced Pages that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),<nowiki>'''</nowiki>'''. If those unverified sources (Please see , , , and for sources and diffs. Please also have a look at the recent added by ] on ] page.) were that verifiable then why did ] use :
			I am not going to ask for an indef here as I don't really want to bite the newbie but this has gone on for long enough. Unas964 is very aware that extended confirmed status is required to edit on the Russia / Ukraine conflict and yet continues not only to do so, but to do so in a way that is highly confrontational, completely fails to ] and that is replete with ] violations. They have a severe ] mentality and hasten to accuse anyone who attempts to ''help them understand'' concepts such as ] of being Putinists. I think it's high time that they are demonstrated that such behaviour will have a consequence. A tban is inappropriate because this editor already should not be editing in this CTOP. So that really only leaves us with a block to get their attention and to hopefully stem this disruptive behaviour. ] (]) 18:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::* ''"I'm a '''fellow Pashtun''' and Misplaced Pages user and just want to ask you for '''assistance''' in a matter. You are aware that this user McKhan has been involved in '''vandalising Pashtun articles."''''' and
			:'''Support''' I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. ] (]) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::* ''"As you and I know both know it's very difficult to find '''"Open Sources"''' to fullfill '''our ancestral history''' but we still manage to get sources and have the '''hard copies''' with ourselves."''
			== Hamzajanah posting vanity hoaxes and general NOTHERE behaviour ==
	::on the trail of canvassing for support.
			{{atop|1=] user is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{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)
	:*I have already provided everything from my side in the above comments as well as the diffs. I will let the admins look into it and decide.
			: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 ==
	:<span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Arial">&nbsp;'''McKhan'''&nbsp;</font></span>&nbsp;<sup>'''(])'''</sup> 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Edward Myer}}
	*'''(Non admin comment)''' {{u|Kkhan0818}}, {{u|PashtunTribal548}}, {{u|McKhan}}, I suggest you all make your points more concise. The wall of text that you have created is not going to help any of you. Please put your diffs <nowiki> in the form of </nowiki> instead of copy-pasting sections and please also quote things in the form 'First few words... last few words' instead of the whole phrase. This thread is one of the longest on the page currently and there haven't even been any responses. Also, in future, please use the notice listed at the top of the page to notify users of a thread involving them.
			{{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)
			*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.
	:Secondly, stop using the word vandalism against each other and start ]. Vandalism is used to describe edits that are intentionally meant to harm the encyclopedia, which none of these seem to be. Thirdly, just because two people are pushing the same POV does not imply they are socks, but if you have solid evidence then take it to ]. Also please don't add level 4 unsourced warnings without warning someone at least once before.
			: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)
	:Finally, PashtunTribal548 and McKhan, stop edit warring '''immediately''' on ], ] and ] or else I will take you to AN3 for violation of ]. Kkhan0818, stop forum-shopping. Thank you. ] (]) 12:02, 14 August 2020 (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)
	::'''Edit:''' This is a content dispute, not a behavioral one, so I would take this to ] instead, but my points above still stand. ] (]) 12:06, 14 August 2020 (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)
	::Thank you for your suggestions. (y) <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Arial">&nbsp;'''McKhan'''&nbsp;</font></span>&nbsp;<sup>'''(])'''</sup> 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			::I appreciate your diplomacy and faith in me. ] (]) 14:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::We have started to work together. May I suggest respectfully that any other matters be set aside for the duration? They can always be returned to if deemed necessary. My hope is that editors will not feel it to be necessary. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My concern is the sock. Edward Myer, do you promise never to sock again? ] (]) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Please revoke TPA from ] ==
	== MinhNhat2K3 and lack of competence ==
			{{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 ==
	*{{user|MinhNhat2K3}}
			{{atop|1=Blocked for a week. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*{{IP|123.20.104.153}}
			*{{userlinks|_Valentinianus I}}
	*{{IP|113.172.189.190}}
			] is an editor with 80 edits as of the moment I'm writing this, the majority of edits made to ] topics.
	*{{IP|123.20.107.34}}
	MinhNhat2K3 is an editor that specalises in adding lengthy lists of unreferenced, and quite often completely incorrect, people to articles, for example to ]. Due to to the talk page of 113.172.189.190 straight after they were blocked, they are obviously editing as that IP as well, and given the same Vietnam ISP and editing style they are are also the first one.		* 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 , .
			* 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."
	Right before they made a complete mess of ], it looked like . No big list of attendees (the France section does contain a small list), but after many edits by both IPs . Clicking on the {{tq|List of officials and dignitaries at the 2018 First World War centenary event}} brings up a huge unreferenced list with many, many errors. For example
			* ] 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 .
	*{{tq|Paolo Artini, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees}} is incorrect, he's a . The actual "Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees" is .
	*{{tq|Fatih Birol, Secretary General of the International Energy Agency}} is incorrect, he's ] of the ].
	*{{tq|Francisco Ribeiro Telles, Secretary General of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries}} is incorrect, the person who held the post at the time was ].
	*{{tq|Tigran Sargsyan, President of the Eurasian Economic Union}} is incorrect, he was Chairman of the Board.
	*{{tq|Sergei Lebedev, Secretary General of CIS}} is incorrect, he's Executive Secretary.
	*{{tq|Stanislav Zas, Secretary General of CSTO}} is incorrect, according to his article he didn't even become a candidate for the job until after the centenary, and wasn't in the position until 2020.
	*{{tq|Thorbjorn Jagland, President of Council of Europe}} is incorrect, he was ].
	*{{tq|Federica Mogherini, Foreign Affairs Chief of the European Union}} is incorrect, she was ].
	*{{tq|Klaus Schwab, Executive Secretary of the World Economic Forum}} is incorrect, he's executive chairman.
	*{{tq|Yukiya Amano, Secretary General of the International Atomic Energy Agency}} is incorrect, he was Director General.
	*{{tq|Epeli Nailatikau, President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association}} doesn't appear to be correct, the head of the ] doesn't appear to be a "president" and there's nothing in the ] article about him holding the post, or any other post at the time of the centenary.
	*{{tq|Lamberto Zannier, Secretary General of OSCE}} is incorrect, he's ] at the OSCE.
	*{{tq|Coly Seck, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council}} appears to be incorrect. ] says he was president in 2019, but I can find no evidence he was ever "Vice President" of the same organisation.
	*{{tq|Guy Ryder, President of ILO}} is incorrect, he's Director-General.
	*{{tq|Abed Ali Abed, President of the World Peace Council}} appears to be (or spelled completely wrong, but I can find nobody with a similar name at the World Peace Council. According to the the president is Socorro Gomes, since .
	*{{tq|Mukhisa Kituyi, President of UNCTAD}} is incorrect, he's Secretary-General.
	*{{tq|Jose Graziano da Silva, President of FAO}} is incorrect, he was Director General.
	*{{tq|{{flagicon|IOM}} George Mavrikos, Secretary General of WFTU}} may only have his job title of General Secretary reversed, but you have to wonder why the General Secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) in Athens, Greece has the flag of the ], a British Crown dependency. (there may be more incorrect flags, it was the only one I noticed and the other errors are bad enough without having to keep digging)
	*{{tq|Yuri Fedotov, Chairman of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime}} is incorrect, he was Executive Director.
	*{{tq|David Beasley, President of World Food Programme}} is incorrect, he's Executive Director.
	*{{tq|Lennart Bage, President of IFAD}} is incorrect, he was , but ] has been .
	*{{tq|William Lacy Swing, Secretary General of International Organization for Migration}} is incorrect, according to ] his term ended in September 2018.
	*{{tq|Moussa Faki, President of the African Union Commission}} is incorrect, he's ].
	*{{tq|Samir Hosny, President of the Arab League}} is incorrect. You'd think if he was president Google would have noticed, instead he was but I can't even show he held a post of that nature in 2018.
	*{{tq|Mishaal bin Fahm Al-Salami, President of Arab Parliament}} is incorrect, according to ] he's speaker.
	*{{tq|Mohammad Reza Majidi, President of Asian Parliamentary Assembly}} is incorrect, he's .
			''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 .
	Those are just from the first sub-section of the guest list, {{tq|INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS GUESTS}}, I couldn't face doing {{tq|WORLD LEADERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS}} and {{tq|Other guests}} since I know they are probably riddled with errors as well. This has been recently remarked on by a , who said {{tq|So many things wrong in the 2018 dignitaries list (fixing them based on references found online as well as general corresponding articles, while also fixing entries placed in wrong continent lists. Other things of course too}}
			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.
	You only have to look at the unreferenced, error-riddled monstrosity they are creating at ] (we have an article on the subject at ] already) to get an idea of the lack of competence they have. I believe their error-ridden, unreferenced lengthy lists of people are generally unencyclopedic and they are a net negative to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 07:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:That is a high error rate, and the inclusion of the list itself is questionable.--] (]) 07:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)		] (]) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I regard lengthy lists as unencyclopedic, but that's probably a side-issue to the error rate, but if that's all they are here to contribute it does demonstrate why I believe they are a net negative, there are no positive contributions to mitigate the errors. Looking at the history of {{la|2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony}}, {{IP|123.20.107.34}} is clearly the current IP being used by MinhNhat2K3, and their response to the ANI notification is to . ] (]) 11:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::So we have an editor who, while logged in and logged out, constantly adds unreferenced content with an unacceptably high error rate, and who apparently has no intention of replying here about this. I'd like to think something needs to be done about this? ] (]) 09:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::While I agree that these errors are problematic and that the edits by ] are probably the same user, has anyone...I dunno...''talked'' to this editor about the issues? There's plenty here for a CIR block, but it's a bit hasty to file an AN/I report or block when there has been no attempt to engage with the editor (who is presumably acting in good, if misguided, faith). ] (]) 21:49, 14 August 2020 (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)
	==Continued hounding==
			*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)
	Following on from ], HuntGroup has continued to follow me to AfD discussions in an attempt to annoy, with (which I later withdrew after examining sources more closely) and now . The user has only ever contributed to AfD on five occasions, three of which are articles I've nominated; firstly in 2017 (not my nomination), then began participating again on 24 July, conveniently, one day after the user created. Regardless whether the user is making correct votes at AfD (the second diff is a straw man argument just for shits and giggles with no substance), when the above diffs are added to the below list, and you take into account that 43 of their last 50 "contributions" are directly related to me, it's a clear cut case of hounding. It's childish retaliation for reverting their edits that were either flat out wrong or did not comply with various MOS'. All instances of hounding so far are as follows: , , , , , , and . – ].].] 13:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:While there might be some evidence that this editor is following your contributions, I don't see anything actionable at the moment. My advice would be to ignore him and let him do his thing. He'll eventually get bored and move on. Complaining about it here shows him that you're annoyed by it, which gives him more reason to continue. ]&nbsp;||</span>]] 03:12, 13 August 2020 (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)
	::The first (ignored) report makes the hounding even clearer. I've seen people warned for less clear cut evidence. As for the repeated PAs, I've seen people blocked for much, much less. I suppose this is a case of, "we're not too keen on this guy. Ignore the report, let it go 'stale', unactionable". We'll see how quick action is taken when I follow the other editor's lead next time they spit their dummy out and have a divy fit over being reverted ;) And just to add, I'm not annoyed or irritated by the weird, stalky behaviour, but my feelings on the matter are completely irrelevant; it's the weird stalky individual's intentions that are relevant. The report is purely to follow procedure...because this is such a serious place and all that *serious face* – ].].] 08:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			::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)
	This guy is getting ridiculous. I have an interest in boxing and I am more of an inclusionist as opposed to an exclusionist. The deletion page for boxing articles is on my watchlist as are 1,000's of other boxing pages. We have differing and mainly opposite views on issues and ] is merely trying to silence me with continuous childish reports to ANI because he doesn't like anyone disagreeing with him. Grow up. --] (]) 12:41, 13 August 2020 (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)
	:As well as never leaving a comment on my talk page, you are not to ping me again, either. Thanks for all your unwanted attention ;) – ].].] 12:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			::: ] (]) 11:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Very aggressive as per usual. Calm down and try and be more kind to fellow editors and you wouldn't be constantly in bother. --] (]) 14:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			== User talk page access, Wiseguy012 ==
	I'm not sure how feasible it is, given that they both edit boxing articles, but I'm starting to think that a temporary interaction ban between these two users might be in everyone's best interests. This is the second time this dispute has come to AN/I, after all. — ''']''' 14:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=I'm just going to close this. If Wiseguy012 returns and continues to rant or issues personal attacks, please return to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:The first report demonstrates clear hounding; going into my contributions to comment on talk pages, a CfD discussion and revert an edit on an article (none of which they have previously edited). All because I corrected a few of their edits that either went against MOS or were factually incorrect and went against sourcing policy. And, well, there's , "{{tq|Absolute nonsense. Squared.Circle.Boxing has been editing in a bullying manner and is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. This is what drew my attention to his editing. I was merely mirroring his editing style}}". If that's not an admission to attempting to bully and harass another editor, then I'm a unicorn called Winston. – ].].] 15:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			Blocked user ] is using their talk page only for the purpose of continuing the rant that they got blocked for at ] and that they continued there as a sock account, {{noping|Friend0113}}, which is also now blocked. See . Revoke user talk page access? ] (]) 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The first report demonstrated nothing of the sort, if it had then action would have been taken by an admin. All it did demonstrate is that you are a bully (diffs provided in the original ANI) and that you don't like anyone that you perceive that stands up to you.
			:Hello, ],
	::To me it just seems like you try to throw enough mud at a wall and hope that eventually some will stick. Grow up and just get on with your editing. It is obvious you act aggressively towards editors that have differing opinions to you so my advice would be to take a deep breath and calm down. --] (]) 17:38, 13 August 2020 (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)
	:::Yet another PA with no evidence. My constructive editing hasn't stopped, your (factually incorrect and against MOS) editing has been near non-existent since you decided to focus all your Misplaced Pages time solely on me. Cute, but worryingly weird. You should maybe take your own advice, kiddo. – ].].] 18:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			:{{noping|Wiseguy012}}, lower g. ] (]) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks CMD. They are just ranting to themselves, not attacking anyone. An admin might come by, review this complaint and remove TPA but I don't find it egregious enough to act. Typically blocked editors can act like this right after they discover they've been blocked but then they move on and leave Misplaced Pages or they start creating sockpuppets and that's a bigger problem than a talk page rant. Too soon to tell right now. But it doesn't seem ANI-worthy to me. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The things some people decide to get mad about.... What they posted on the talk page was a copyright violation in its entirety, so that's gone, and I've warned them for that and let them know further disruption of any kind will cause them to lose talk page access. ] ] 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. ] (]) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Still misuse of talk page for spamming. ] 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That content was posted hours ago and was similar to what was reported here in the complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	== ] ==		== Caste-based disruption ==
			{{u|HistorianAlferedo}} has engaged in contentious ] style editing in the ] related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in ] POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as ] (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:
	{{pagelinks|104.243.164.36}}<br>
			*, , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
	This is probably a sock of {{User|Dragonrap2}}, {{User|104.243.160.113}}, {{User|WXA53}}, {{User|Futurewiki}}, {{User|104.243.169.127}}, {{User|104.243.167.109}}, {{User|Futuristic21}}, {{User|Futurewiki2}}, {{User|Mega256}}, {{User|Futurewiki The Third}}, {{User|Mega257}}, {{User|Mega258}}, {{User|Futurew}}, {{User|104.243.166.108}}, {{User|104.243.170.125}}, and {{User|Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues}}. If so, this editor has done much harm in the past. Thank you. ] (]) 17:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			*: clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
	:{{nacmt}} {{u|Magnolia677}}, have you taken this to ]? There aren't any immediate or chronic issues as far as I can tell with the user's contributions. —]&nbsp;(&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;) 01:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			*, , , , : POV caste-based insertions
	::{{ping|Tenryuu}} My experience in the past is they do a lot of damage in a short time. I've always brought it to ANI. ] (]) 09:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			*, : 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)
	== user:Adrian L.55 removing CSD templates from ] ==
			:], 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)
			::{{done}} ] (]) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Actually i was only editing and adding new information along with genuine citations. I had no motive for any sort of vandalism or anything else. Based on the knowledge about various topics of Indian history i was just trying to contribute in a positive way. Moreover some of the allegations by user Gotitbro are totally irrelevant, i’m not an indian but interested in the topics related to Indian history. New editors should be supported by the old ones and not demotivated with false allegations. Alright, if the old editors don’t want the new ones to contribute to[REDACTED] even in a good way then i’ll definitely even delete my account from wikipedia. Thank you ] (]) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::], I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Okay @]. Please have a look at pages: ] and ] I added relevant information along with scholarly work sources but user:@] just reverted all the changes without even looking at the correct citations. That’s why i thought now i won’t edit and visit[REDACTED] as few users here just try to show off their ranks, there are good wikipedians and administrators too but a few of them are doing this with the new contributors. Thank you ] (]) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by ] ==
	Possible conflict of interest, I tried warning him that page creators shouldn't remove these templates, but he has ignored me. ] (]) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI.
	Hi, this person just joined today and seems very well experienced, please investigate as it seems like a sockpuppet case. I don't care about the page at all. I requested him to launch XFD but he seems to have COI. His account Should be checked via IP checker. ] (]) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of.
	:I warned the user, hopefully it will make them stop. ] (]) 19:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::The article however did not meet ] and I have deleted it as it was nominated by another uninvolved user. ] (]) 20:01, 12 August 2020 (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.
	Thank you all, you guys are very helpful ] (]) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (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.
	:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FreeMePlease&diff=prev&oldid=972574894 This appears to be a threat. ] (]) 20:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Not a legal threat, but rather foreboding. "What is yours will be yours, you will get what is meant for you. Hope you understand what I mean. Good luck :) Adrian L.55 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)"
	::What sort of thing is that, to say to an editor? <b>] ]</b> 04:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I'm not sure if that's block worthy, but I would like Adrian L.55 to come here and discuss what they meant by that. ] (]) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (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.
	== ] : ] and ] ==
	{{atop|result=Indeffed as spam/advertising-only account. {{nac}} ] (]) 07:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	{{u|Surjitxingha}} seems to be ]-ing and ]-ing a number of pages. I removed them once but he went ahead and reinserted them. Here are the diffs, exactly the same text, from different articles:
			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.
	* , , , ,
			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
	] (]) 22:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	*I reverted and warned. Thank you. ] (]) 22:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
			He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here {{redacted}}. I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.
	The specific user ] had been constantly doing vandalism activity in number of pages. The cited information is relevant from a high impact Journal. The user Chaipau had been on a constant activity of vandalism in[REDACTED] which can be retrieved from the history. The readers need validated information from a reliable sources. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	The cited information is relevant to the topic from a reliable and high impact sources. Most of the information in those pages were constantly deleted by unknown editors, many a times such editors had been doing a vandalism activity by including unscientific information form an unknown sources. The information cited is from a most reliable sources, to defend my statement, the reference is cited along with the source of the article.
			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.
	Before deleting, you are requested to visit the source so that the argument cited can be validated. The topic needs original information from the native speaker, further information presented is ethical, and unbiased. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*We aren't even talking about the quality of the source: we are judging the fact that you, an editor with an obvious conflict of interest, keep inserting the same poorly written content in a variety of articles, and then you are edit-warring over it. I blocked you for SPAM ONLY, but it could have been NOTHERE as well. ] (]) 00:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: {{ping|Drmies}} thank you for looking into and resolving this issue. ] (]) 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			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)
	== Pro-Palestinian editors editing in consort to push POV ==
	{{archive top|result=Not much more is going to come out of this, except maybe some more mud-slinging, and more sidetracking. Debresser, it is noted, is under an AE sanction. {{U|Sandstein}}, given , I would like for you to consider, separately, whether this is just a runaround. ] (]) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	On August 6, {{Userlinks|Huldra}} made an edit to the ] article which changed a long-standing version. She has since tried a few more times to enforce her POV on that article, together with her usual friends {{Userlinks|Selfstudier}} and {{Userlinks|Nableezy}}, against the lack of consensus evident from the discussion, which initially took place at ] and now also at ]. I asked these editors be made to stop, and the article restored to its pre-edit warring version from June 24. ] (]) 22:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:] had a referece to ], which is a redir to ]. I inserted the direct link, later changed to ].
	:Needless to say, the expression "]" is a totally Israel-centric name. And Debresser does not have consensus for his view: only two very newbie editors, Aroma Stylish and 11Fox11 supports him. (-Bolter21 is "indifferent", while Selfstudier, Nableezy, Zero0000 and myself oppose him), ] (]) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{U|Debresser}}, I don't think there is much point in fighting over a redirect for what is quite clearly not a neutral name. ] (]) 22:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Drmies}}, while you're here, can you please comment on this, , since this is a common occurrence here and years back you scolded me for calling this a witch-hunt. I still think this is unacceptable to basically accuse every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Not sure what you mean with "this"--what's the antecedent. But if someone accuses every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock, that would indeed be a violation of AGF. In this case, {{U|Nableezy}}, lay off it please. If you have evidence you might could ask such a question, but without evidence, please don't. Sir Joseph, you will have to admit that the user is very familiar with intricate formatting and syntax, and who has 5,000 articles on their watchlist after having edited fewer than 700 articles? But Nableezy, if that's all it was, that's not enough. Now, Sir Joseph, one of the things I have always disliked about your MO is the sidetracking--and you're doing it again. If you have something, don't put it in some other report. This isn't like you're a senator and you can stick a pet project in an appropriations bill. ] (]) 03:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I do have evidence. That is not all. I think you can check my track record on who I've asked that question to and whether they were proven to be a sock or not. I have not, and never have, '' basically accuse every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock'', that remains a bald-faced lie that has never been demonstrated to be anything but. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::::::I don't believe you accuse every new etc. editor of that, but if you have evidence, make the proper case, at SPI. You should know how to do this properly. ] (]) 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Part of generating further evidence is asking the question. I mean I suppose you could give me a discretionary sanction against asking the question, but as it stands I dont think it violates any policy to do so and if I think that asking that question to be a useful thing I probably will continue doing so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:::::::: I noticed the same edit. The pattern is that when you see a new editor who makes an edit you don't like, you ask if they are a sock. ] (]) 23:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::lol, not really. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:::::{{u|Drmies}}, the editor has been here since January 2020 and it makes perfect sense to know syntax, etc. Keep in mind evidence is editing similar articles and in many cases it's actually editing in the same timezone or geography. CU's aren't always tech-savvy and many "pro-Israel" editors in California for example are caught as socks merely because they edit in the same IP range or time zone. At a prior SPI, it was mentioned that you can do an editor interaction between any of the "other" editors. The evidence presented is often that a pro-Israel editor edits in the IP conflict area and edits with a pro-Israel bias. Not very compelling evidence. And I'm commenting here because I'm not opening a full case for this and just wanted to mention this because I see it often enough. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::You really like parroting arguments by socks dont you? Why dont you tell the class ] at that prior SPI? Oh shocker, the person I said was a sock was in fact a sock. Horrors. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 12:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:::::::{{u|Nableezy}}, " Keep in mind evidence is editing similar articles and in many cases it's actually editing in the same timezone or geography. CU's aren't always tech-savvy and many "pro-Israel" editors in California for example are caught as socks merely because they edit in the same IP range or time zone. "
	:::::::As I said, they aren't tech savvy and just catch people who edit similar areas and this has happened in the past. Any "pro-Israel" editor in the SoCal area is now automatically labeled a sock. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::Unsupported assertion. Your imagination is not exactly something that I plan on spending much more time on now. When I feel that there is a point to asking that question I will continue to do so. When I feel there is sufficient evidence to request a check, I will continue to do so. Thanks for your cooperation and support in upholding ] ]. I very much appreciate it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::::::::{{ping|Drmies|Sir Joseph}} . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 12:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:::::::::{{u|Nableezy}}, as I said, you'll always get the CU and SPI clerks to mark them related and blocked. So the fact that you caught a new user doesn't mean much to me. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ping|Nableezy}}, thank you for filing the SPI. That is the way to do it. I think I've blocked a couple of their socks before. {{U|Sir Joseph}}, I have no idea what you're saying. Are you saying "Nableezy, you are so well at playing a game in a rigged system that whatever you say, the clerks and CUs will do"? Or are you saying "the clerks and CUs are so dumb/corrupt/whatever that they always mark everyone as a sock of that LTA"? ] (]) 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{u|Drmies}}, I'm saying it has been like that in the past. People have been caught in the SPI net when the only fault was that they were editing in a certain area, and in a certain geography or time zone. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Debresser, sometimes you have to accept that the world does not agree with you. While you may believe it was a war of independence, and I may agree with you, in balance, most consider it a war between two opposing parties with legitimate claims. Once a consensus decision has been made, updating articles that mention the conflict should be uniform. Pick you battles better.] (]) 01:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Debresser, being upset that people disagree with you isnt typically a reason to come to ANI. I reverted an edit that remains a violation of NPOV and which appears to have a majority of editors agreeing with me. Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	*This is just a content dispute (and certainly "avoid using a redirect that might violate ]" is at least not an ''unreasonable'' argument to make.) Your objection seems to be that your politics differs from the editors you're in a dispute with, but they could just as easily represent your side of the dispute as "Pro-Israel editors editing to push POV"; almost everyone editing in that topic area has a discernible opinion on it, after all (people rarely edit topics they have ''no'' opinion on.) More generally it is ] conduct to ''immediately'' leap to political disagreements with editors as the locus of a dispute - unless you have a more specific reason to think there are conduct issues, you need to focus on content, not editors; and I'm not understanding what you feel the conduct issue is here. --] (]) 05:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: @Aquillion A 7 day prolonged edit war is not "leaping" to WP:ANI. The issue is 3 editors trying to change a consensus version against 2 editors, ''not'' the content issue. You were just as sloppy with your arguments on the talkpage as you are here.
	:: @Drmies In general, there are case where in the context of a certain article or paragraph a less neutral term is appropriate, as even some of my opponents in this case admit. I hold that this is such a case. Even if you disagree, this thread is about the edit warring, not about the content issue. The content issue can be dealt with ''after'' the edit warriors are forced to stop edit warring. After all, if consensus will be as they hold, why do they have to edit war? The fact is that it isn't, and that they are using their numbers to push their POV '''against''' consensus. ] (]) 14:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Logic fail, the numbers are against you but you have consensus. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::*It's still a content dispute. I'm not seeing any indication that your preferred version enjoys consensus at all, but beyond that, you have four reverts on that page in the past four days - more than anyone else in that timeframe. If there's a revert war there then ''you'' are the main person at fault, especially since you seem to be conceding that you've been trying to revert back to a version that (at the very least) doesn't have support from a numerical majority of editors. (As I'm sure you're aware as a veteran editor, believing your version enjoys consensus is ''not'' an excuse to edit-war.) If you think it has consensus anyway, slow down, stop hammering the revert button and start an ] to establish it. And you've repeatedly accused other people of POV editing (not to mention insulting me just now) with, as far as I can tell, no evidence - even if you disagree with the edit it is clear that it is not an ''unreasonable'' one to make. That being the case, you need to remember ] and cool it on accusing every single person you're in this dispute with of being POV warriors unless you have, you know, actual evidence. Dragging a content dispute where ''you'' have been edit-warring more aggressively than anyone else to ] and then insulting people isn't the way to resolve this sort of thing. --] (]) 09:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	* I'm with {{u|Drmies}} and {{u|AlmostFrancis}} on this; however I'd like to note that {{u|Nableezy}}'s provocations in this thread are unhelpful (and probably not the first), and if continued might justify disciplinary measures. ] (]) 14:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::lol, ok. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	The only reason we are here is because Debresser is banned from creating AE reports due to his repeated filing of vexatious and unsupported complaints (, following the warning ). He was banned because his reports were invariably of the type as seen here. User X made an edit I dont like, please block him. I dont know if merely shifting the venue for these kind of reports is really the best solution here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
			: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.
	Also, ] appears to be a straightforward violation of ] and ] for good measure. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
			:{{Blockquote|"During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had {{Diff|Tsumyoki|1240530309}} as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]."}}
			:In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.
			:If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided ]. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.
			:I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to ], but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. ] (]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. ] 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits ==
	Can somebody please just close this? Enough time has been spent on this, me thinks, ] (]) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Indeffed by Canterbury Tail ] ] 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	: @Nableezy I won't even reply to that incorrect claim. In any case, the facts here don't lie: the three of you consort to push you POV without obtaining consensus, and it has to stop. ] (]) 23:32, 13 August 2020 (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)}}
	: @François Robere Thank you for noticing this. He does it everywhere and all the time. ] (]) 23:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			* {{userlinks|TTYDDoopliss}}
	::I am bewildered: you say we edit against consensus, but still fewer numbers supports your view? "Consensus" doesn't mean the minority, AFAIK. Also, again, to repeat: there is no artickle named "]"; there is a redirect named that. According to Debresser it is ] to link to the original WP-name: again, that does not make sense to me, ] (]) 23:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	* '''Why is everyone so excited over simple wording?''' These are only Misplaced Pages articles, not some big deal international treaty. Writing better text or disagreeing over wording isn't something that should cause such excitement. ] (]) 04:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	** {{re|11Fox11}} In TAs like this even slight changes in wording can matter a lot to what the reader perceives, and there's often stonewalling around one phrase or the other, so by the time they reach here there's much angst going around. ] (]) 08:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::: True. In any case, I am here about the behavioral issue, not the content issue, which is adequately being discussed on the talkpage. However, since I see this discussion is unfortunately not leading to any action, I don't mind it being closed. ] (]) 12:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::I kinda think you should be sanctioned for repeating the behavior that led to your AE ban and for the CANVAS violation at ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:::::Don't get greedy. ]]] 14:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::{{U|Levivich}}, good point. Still, I pinged the closing admin of that AE matter, {{U|Sandstein}}, to ask for their opinion--but that is a matter that can be discussed separately. ] (]) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			Summary: Is there a non-male administrator willing to provide some guidance to this editor, particularly in edits related to gender?
	== ] ==
	{{atop|result=Blocked as username violation and ]. {{nac}} ] (]) 07:38, 14 August 2020 (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.
	Please rev/delete recent edit summaries. Thanks, ] (]) 05:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:(non-admin comment) The editor at issue is {{userlinks|2020 Astros World Series Tour}}, who IMO is ]. ] (]) 05:59, 13 August 2020 (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:
	::Note: {{userlinks|2020 Astros World Series Tour}} blocked by {{noping|Cryptic}} for ''<nowiki>{{uw-vaublock}} <!-- Username violation, vandalism-only account --></nowiki>''. ] (]) 07:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			* This sequence of edits to ]:
			** {{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.
			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)
			: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}}		{{abot}}
			== ]: ] and ] behaviour. ==
	== User getting out of control ==
			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.
	went out of control and started doing mass changes by citing an irrelevant talk page argument on his talk page, and now he is edit warring to reinstate errors he is introducing through his mass edits instead of engaging on discussion on his talk page.
	A block is clearly needed in order to stop disruption from this loose cannon. ] (]) 05:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{ping|RegentsPark}} {{ping|Fowler&fowler}} {{ping|Kmzayeem}} As per consensus reached in my talk page and expert guidance from RegentsPark I have edited infobox regarding citizenship and nationality status. Before notifying what issue he has with those edits Wareon has been doing mass reverting. Without even willing to participate in the discussion on my talk page.--] (]) 05:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Your talk page discussion which only concerned only 1 or 2 articles isn't enough for making mass changes. You will need consensus of community if you want to make mass changes. Use a proper noticeboard for it and not your personal talk page. ] (]) 05:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::I see you are still doing mass reverts for reinstating your problematic edits without gaining consensus. ] (]) 05:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Calm down brother admin and other shall intervene what problem you have with citizenship and nationality issue we'll address. Instead doing mass rv you could have told me on my talk page what problem you have with citizenship or nationality issue. Since I just followed what admin and other experience editors advised. Chill brother. All your concerns shall be address. Admin if I have involved in ] then I'm sorry.--] (]) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*For anyone interested, see ]. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 06:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	: I blocked for 72h for massive edit warring, hopefully the SPI results would be ready before the block has expired.--] (]) 06:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: And now blocked indef as a sock.--] (]) 09:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::: Phew!--] <small>(])</small> 11:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Can somebody please roll back their edits? ]] 11:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Looks like it's already been done. ] (]) 12:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::: I have rolled back all edits starting from yesterday evening; older edits do not look so problemati to me, and need to be looked at case by case.--] (]) 12:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	== ] is malfunctioning ==
	{{atop
	| status = No action
	| result = The (likely dynamic) IP the OP is using had reverted edits made by previous holders of the same IP. ClueBot is not broken. —]&nbsp;(&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	}}
			(The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value)
			Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like.
			More specifically this line:
	I am not logged in because I don't have an account. I just went to the Misplaced Pages page about Charles M Goethe, an American eugenicist. There was a message at the top of the page telling me that two edits that I had made to Misplaced Pages pages had been rescinded by ClueBot. I have never made edits to Misplaced Pages pages. I poked around to see what this was about and found this page. I don't know anything else about it, but think that something is malfunctioning on your site.
			{{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)
	] (]) 06:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)David Cook
	:These two messages on ] are old (one of them from 2018), and your IP address did indeed make these edits, which means that ClueBot isn't malfunctioning. The likely explanation is that your IP address is ] and you likely got one that was previously used by someone who vandalized Misplaced Pages. If you weren't responsible for the edits in question, then I wouldn't worry about it. —<span style="border:2px solid;background:#db2416;border-radius:5px;">]]</span> 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Small clarification to the above: "someone from the IP address you are now using...". ] (]) 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("{{tq|or called for a moratorium on changes}}") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content ({{tq|Only one active discussion-engaged user}}). Other editors, like @], have been calling them out for this as well.
	== ] ==
			Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.
	{{userlinks|122.109.12.199}} has made several non-constructive edits to the page {{pagelinks|Tevita Pangai Junior}}, altering the rugby league player's last name to instead read an Australian English ] (diffs , and, most recently, ). A previous user warning for vandalism has seemingly gone unnoticed, and none of this user's edits contain any other changes aside from the insertion of said slur. Requesting a block per ]. ] (]) 09:35, 13 August 2020 (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.
	== ]'s persistent misuse of the Rollback and Twinkle tools to unilaterally revert legitimate edits on ] without adequate justification ==
	{{atop|result=OP blocked for block evasion. {{nac}} ] (]) 07:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	I would like to report a incident concerning a user by the name of ]. Recently, while attempting to make an edit to ]'s lede, Vif12vf has continually misused the Rollback and Twinkle tools to unilaterally revert any edit I've attempted to make to the page, and Vif12vf has failed to provide an adequate policy-based justification for said reverts in the edit summary, nor did he specifically point out any potential errors to me. In addition, when I've tried to issue several warnings to him on his talk page about his problematic conduct, he erased them from his talkpage (Once again, using the Twinkle tool) without even indicating he has properly read them, nor did he issue a proper response, and the only communication I received from him was a template regarding blanking, even though my edit has not removed any significant portion of content from the article, and were restrained solely to the lede.
	Relevant diffs can be found here:
			'''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golden_Dawn_%28political_party%29&type=revision&diff=972431200&oldid=972431125
			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)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972431200
			: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)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972431382
			: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.
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972491020
			: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)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972497219
			*: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 ().
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972508278
			:while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree ''at all'' makes this pretty ] behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for ]. ] 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment:''' ] for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was
			:{{quote|Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.}}
			:This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. ] 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to ] more than ]. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. ] (]) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. ] 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. ] (]) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. ] (]) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.}}
			::::And ''very clearly'' retaliatory. ] 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per ]: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually.
			:::::You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Misplaced Pages citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. '''] ]''' 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}}
			::::::Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the ''exact'' types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. ] 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. '''] ]''' 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with {{U|Springee}} about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. ] (]) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for ''the exact same behaviour''. ] 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::As a perfect example, in this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist. <s>This is because it says that the party isn't ''just'' a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist ] and the fascist propagandist ]. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop". </s>] (]) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Ok here's the correct quote now: {{tq|The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.<br /> This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.<br /> While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear.}}
			::::::Now this article does compare the ''Democratic party'' as a whole to ''Trump'' on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is {{tq|It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it.}} The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. ] (]) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Also, the ''New York Times'' introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data." ] says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source.
			:::::::It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used.
			:::::::My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. ] (]) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what ] says {{tq|When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.}} ] (]) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. ] (]) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page. Maybe it would be best if editors heavily involved there, would avoid each other & allow newcomers room to give their input. Might lower the heat. ] (]) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Attempt at user talkpage discussion and 3RR warning for edit-warring:
			:{{tq|Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.}}
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=prev&oldid=972497930
			:It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. ] 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=next&oldid=972497930
			:Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=next&oldid=972505571
			::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)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=next&oldid=972507037
			::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)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=next&oldid=972508097
			::::I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: ], just in case anyone wants to review it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @] engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating
			:::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}}
			:::::In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing .
			:::::A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. ] 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::*As I expected, {{ping|Warrenmck}} - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them.
			::::::*First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the ] page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of ''this'' report.
			::::::*Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you ''still cannot define what POV I am pushing'' - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning ''is''. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list ] and ] as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is ''yours'', because it's been utterly ridiculous.
			::::::*You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. '''I think everything I said is correct'''. Your proposal was '''bad'''. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly.
			::::::*Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me '''here''' of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to ''agree'' with me.
			::::::*Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over.
			::::::*I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting '''my''' time, you are wasting '''your''' time, and you're wasting '''everyone's''' time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. '''] ]''' 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::*:As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. ] (]) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::*::TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are ''several new peer reviewed sources'' that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of ''multiple other editors'' and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. ] (]) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::*:::A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of ], ], and ]. ] 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::*:Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example:
			::::::*:{{tq|Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.}}
			::::::*:Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the ''context'' in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a .
			::::::*::'''1.''' You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to.
			::::::*::'''2.''' Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for ''years'', once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not
			::::::*::'''3.''' In the absence of any substantive objection, ] material should be added in.
			::::::*:] doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and ] then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. ] 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::*If you're going to accuse {{ping|Springee}} of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here.
			::::::::*Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a ] exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you.
			::::::::*With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. '''] ]''' 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::*:Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @], who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. ] (]) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::*::Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? ] (]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::*:::I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. ] (]) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::*::I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. ] (]) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{u|Warrenmck}}, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards ]. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sorry, I can back away ] 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Repeated WP:GS/AA violations ==
	Sole communication with Vif12vf on my talkpage:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:95.103.231.0&diff=next&oldid=972491043		On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
			Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by ] such as the following: ], ], ], and made poorly sourced POV additions such as:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:95.103.231.0&diff=next&oldid=972498161 ] (]) 12:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			*
	:The reason is simple enough, you are removing sourced information without providing a valid reason. If other editors have added information and approprietly sourced it, you cant just simply remove it without discussing the matter on the talk-page first and gaining concensus! ] (]) 12:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::And what information did I remove, Vif? Your utter lack of proper communication with me in your edit summaries and on the talk page is quite outrageous, especially since you have repeatedly used the Rollback tool to revert my edits without adequate justification, despite the fact that Rollback is only to be used in cases of obvious and severe vandalism, which did not happen on ]. ] (]) 12:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::You removed a source without explaining why, and you never had a proper edit-summary to begin with. If you had taken the short time to simply explain why, either through the edit-summary or through the talk-page, there most likelly wouldn't have been a problem to begin with! After all, it is not the other changes that were problematic! ] (]) 13:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Then you should have properly notified me about any accidental removal of pre-existing sources, ideally right within the edit summary itself, but you didn't even do that. Instead, you unilaterally reverted the entirety of my edit with the Rollback tool, as if it was vandalism, which it is not, and then proceeded to revert every subsequent edit made since without any proper explanation (While also engaging in edit-warring at that), and did not even bother to specifically notify me of the supposed mistake. Once again, lack of proper communication, which is a serious problem on a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:IP, your "restore" and other edit summaries are wholly insufficient. ], your use of rollback without any explanation at all is not helpful. All you had to say was "unexplained removal of source": that "without providing a valid reason" works two ways. I agree there was no obvious vandalism here; context (we're talking about a suggests there's something real here. Now both of you need to stop talking and let other editors and admins respond here. ] (]) 14:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I would lastly just like to add that i have already told another editor on my talk-page that i will refrain from editing the article further for now. ] (]) 15:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*IP blocked for block evasion; see block log. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			*
	== New account violating ARBPIA 500/30 Rule ==
	{{atop|result=], please make an '''extended-protection''' request at ] next time, thanks. {{nac}} ] (]) 07:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	Violation:
			*
	"500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict." , he has not only violated this but also violated the 1rr per 24 hours. Can some admin please lock the article. --] (]) 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:{{rfpp|do}}. Next time, ] is better for these sort of requests. ] 14:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			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)
	== Legal threats by Branstarx3 ==
			:Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{Userlinks|Branstarx3}}
			::Given them a on the matter. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Branstarx2 has made legal threats, stating {{tq|Article should be reported to higher Indian authorities}} at ]
			:::@] 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)
	. She doubled down on her talk page, asserting {{tq|author of article has blindly ignored Official Notice and judgement of Supreme Court of India }} — <b>]</b> <small>(], ])</small> 13:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			:::@] after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: . It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. ] (]) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:It seems to be that the user is stating what they think should happen(with the first comment) and their opinion about what the Supreme Court in India has said(the second comment). Are they threatening to perform legal actions themselves? Though perhaps the chilling effect is enough. ] (]) 13:36, 13 August 2020 (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.
	:Not nice, but not a threat per se.--] (]) 12:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			::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)
	{{u|Billhpike}} {{u|331dot}} {{Sorry}} I am reverting my edits to ] which as by u could give Misplaced Pages contributors the impression that i may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Misplaced Pages itself. Which is not the fact actually, wrong allegations that i am giving '''legal-threat''' has been made upon me. Still, following wiki policy i am reverting my edits on talk page of article mentioned above, i am stepping back from issue ] (]) 14:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	== User editing behaviour ==		== Caribbean Hindustani ==
			*{{articlelinks|Caribbean Hindustani}}
			This is probably not the appropriate page, but I couldn't find a better one. If an admin may have a look at the version history of the ] article - there's two quite new editors battling out a dispute since December. Maybe some administrative guidance would help them. Thanks and kind regards, ] 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	I appreciate that political beliefs are often a motivator for contributions and that's natural and unavoidable but I recently noticed ] exclusively adding POV content in favour of the Chinese government (e.g. , , ), including synth/OR/undue material and citing deprecated state-media outlets such as the ], ] (itself by the user), or even the . I just wanted to see if anyone else thinks it's enough of a cause for concern (i.e. not being here to build an encyclopedia) to be worth trying to address (and possibly if there's any way to check if this is a paid account). Thanks, ─ ] « ] · ] » 14:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*We can't check if something is a paid account. We can check if something is a sock; in this case there is no evidence of it. I do not, however, believe even for a moment this is truly a new editor, and I agree that their edits warrant scrutiny. You could file an SPI, and maybe ask a CU to look at the entire range, but I am not sure it is really warranted without some further suggestion that there is socking. ] (]) 14:53, 13 August 2020 (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) ==
	Gotta admit - Misplaced Pages sure has a way of making new editors feel welcome. ;-)
			{{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.
	Do you guys really believe that editing Misplaced Pages is THAT difficult? That new editors have to spend a few days and days learning the ropes and acclimatizing themselves before they jump in? That if a new editor is more active than you expected, there can be no other explanation other than that he is an old editor editing under a different name? lol...
			A few examples that I sourced in my :
	Apart from the baseless accusations (I have NEVER edited Misplaced Pages before creating this account, except a small copy edit I once made as an unregistered user), there are also factual inaccuracies. I dare you to point out a single edit I have made on any page that is uncited and unsourced and NOT backed up by sources. So much for "POV" content. Not to mention that most of my changes wouldn't even be required if existing editors would've done better jobs of creating and editing the pages themselves. So much for "building an encyclopedia" :P
			IP ] is now repeating this pattern, in what appears to be block-evasion.
	Moreover, if my edits were POV, wouldn't all of them be reverted by other editors by now?
			Out of the five edits made by this IP:
	And as for being "pro-China", well, when hundreds of editors are prancing about making edits ''unfavorable'' to China citing RSes, that's absolutely fine. But how dare someone come along and add PRO-CHINA content citing RSes? Hmmm must be a sockpuppet or a paid account you guys...<br>
			Made before 58.235.154.8 ban, changed Flight 8 launch date from Early 2025 to February 2025. Doesn't add a source.
	] (]) 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			Delays ] on ] from February 2025 to March 2025. No source added.
	Having the initiative to self-revert, as the reported user has done here (] ]) is hardly ] conduct. And claiming "deprecated state outlets" without a link to ] or mentioning the fact both CGTN and Global Times are under discussion at the moment at ] is potentially misleading / deceptive. Next thread? <span style="color: #8B0000">Caradhras</span>Aiguo (<small>]</small>) 21:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Yeah I slipped up, the two sources I mentioned are ] ] agreed to be deprecated, pretty much unanimously, but haven't been formally deprecated yet, despite obviously ]. It's disingenuous to suggest that heavy reliance on Chinese state propaganda isn't a massive red flag. ─ ] « ] · ] » 11:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.
	::Actually you're being disingenuous. My reliance on Chinese media as sources so far is actually very light, and always attributed, and mostly for factual assertions (e.g. how many countries support China at the UN).
			Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches, again from February to March. No source added.
	::Look, I get it - many people get triggered when they see Chinese state media being cited, but I suggest you stick to the facts before casting aspersions on other editors.
	::] (]) 13:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.
	I'm actually most amused by the linking of my "re-organization" of the CGTN page to some nefarious design. As you can see from the link above, I have not removed a single criticism of CGTN from the page. Here's my edit summary: "''Moved criticism in lead section to the (renamed) section 'Criticisms and controversies' (and only included a summary of criticisms in lead section). Added subsection about US foreign agent designation. Added quotes by Xi Jinping and Liu Yunshan in lead section. Didn't remove anything''"
			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)
	In fact, that applies to all pages I've edited. I never, ever remove sourced criticisms of China, unless there's a good reason for it (e.g. it's repetitive)
	] (]) 11:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Additionally, geolocate places both IP addresses in the same region, which makes it quite likely that they are evading a ban.
	== Being wikihounded ==
			:
	{{atop|Not actionable, not hounding. But {{noping|C2A06}} ] from ] and ] for 3 years. Note that a sitewide block remains on the table if further disruption continues. ] 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
			: ] (]) 19:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	I stumbled upon the controversial ] article and from what I've seen there are many different heated viewpoints over there. I made a talk page comment as a neutral user in a section before briefly getting involved and making some copy-edits and adding info on the actual article. Some were reverted, and I decided not to revert back or pursue it even further because I didn't want to get into a dispute of some sort. It seems like ] is an active user on the article and its talk page. After I've backed out of it though, that same user decided to revert edits and even more which I've been contributing that has zero connections whatsoever to Adrian Zenz, which they only did after I got involved there, so it's definitely not a coincidence. Horse Eye Jack has also made no contributions to the article I was contributing before this event.
			::Thanks for putting together such an easy to follow report. I've blocked them for the same length of time as their original IP account. If this becomes a habit, it might be easier to semi-protect certain articles temporarily. You probably know where to go to request that action to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I honestly cannot remember where to go for that. ] (]) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::] ] (]) 21:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks! ] (]) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (added after discussion close)
			{{abot}}
			== Danny5784 ==
	This is very disheartening and is making me have second thoughts on continuing to contribute on Misplaced Pages, considering it took me days to write and improve on the article and it was just easily reverted because they probably didn't agree with my contributions on Adrian Zenz. To rub salt into the wounds, they used a template on my talk page which felt really patronising, claiming I have not provided "reliable sources", when I clearly did and was probably just used as an excuse to justify the revert. I had to make this section because it's most likely that they might follow me around in future edits and I would want to put a stop to it before they decide to do it again. Thank you. ] (]) 17:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{userlinks|Danny5784}} does not seem to have the maturity and judgement to be a productive editor. Despite ] and efforts by multiple editors to explain things to them, they are continuing to create unneeded pages. Of the 18 articles they've created, 9 have been redirected (mostly at AfD), 2 deleted, and 4 currently have unanimous delete/redirect consensus at AfD. Three of their most recent creations are particularly noteworthy:
	:{{u|Telsho}} did you miss the giant notice that says you '''must''' inform editors when discussing them here? ] (]) 17:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			* After ] was declined by {{u|Stuartyeates}}, and I ] that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 ].
	::You and HEJ seem to edit similar articles, so I assume you both know each other more than it leads on. It was barely 20 mins, so you couldn't wait a little? You seem to have already added it for me anyway adding in some personal comments without assuming good faith of course, thanks a lot. And why exactly did you revert the edit which you only did minutes after this ANI was created? Are you serious right now? ] (]) 18:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			* Danny5784 created ] with poor sourcing, much of it from a user-generated wiki. After {{u|Djflem}} wrangled it into a useful list, Danny5784 created both ] and ] apparently as ].
	:::Because I was attempting to see what the dispute was about when I noticed your persistent edit warring in recent changes. I guess you caught me, HEJ is clearly my alter-ego, since we have so much in common! ] (]) 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			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.
	::::What "persistent edit warring", exactly? I reverted twice, first from HEJ, and now you (which you reverted again). Tell me more. ] (]) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Things to consider: you deleted the warning template on your talkpage without following up on why it might have been placed and immediately decided the next correct step was to report the user who reverted you for perceived behavioral problems instead of engaging with the user in discussion. I suggest you withdraw this report and instead open talkpage discussion at the relevant page about your massive rewrite of the article; in fact, consider that you've not participated in ''any'' talkpage discussion at all, ever. Follow ] and build consensus. But it's hard to take this filing seriously when you never even attempted to discuss on the article talkpage or with HEJ. ] (]) 17:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I would have engaged in the discussion if they had made a section on the talk page of that specific article, but instead they reverted it altogether and slapped a template on me. Furthermore, this only happened after getting involved in articles they were in, and the article I was editing in question was never edited by them (like I've previously stated in the first statement). ] (]) 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::You should have started the discussion when they told you to get consensus, same as when I told you to take it to the talk page. ] (]) 18:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::], have you ever edited Misplaced Pages under another account? ] (]) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	You know what, I don't know what exactly you both are attempting here by trying to deflect this on me as what HEJ did was clearly within the definitions of ]. I also find it weird that most ANI reports (based on just scrolling up) don't really attract other users (especially non-admins) attention so I don't understand what's actually happening here. The fact that Praxidicae and HEJ has interacted before doesn't help either, so it's hard to assume they are interacting with me from a neutral point of view. I'm also not withdrawing this report whatsoever. ] (]) 18:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::I'm not sure you understand what ] is, but this certainly isn't it. I also recommend you stop doing ] and ], unless of course the goal here is to get yourself blocked. Go make your case for the content '''on the talk page'''. ] (]) 18:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I looked at ] once more and I understand it well enough for me to take it up to ANI, thanks. ] (]) 18:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*{{u|Telsho}} I'm sorry that you feel you have been treated unfairly. However, can I ask that you stop casting aspersions against other editors? Praxidicae and Grandpallama are very experienced editors in good standing; the suggestion that they have some sort of clandestine connection with HEJ is not credible, and I'd strongly advise you to withdraw it unless you feel you can offer some concrete evidence to support it. Is the diff you've presented above at ] the only occurrence that makes you think that this is a case of hounding? I haven't looked at it closely, so I'm not in a position to comment on whether or not it was an appropriate revert, but is this the only incident? Thanks ]] 18:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Hi @], thanks for your response. I initally thought this was the only incident, but after looking at my contributions once again they also made a revert here , which I'm not going to revert for now as it's another controversial topic which is a story for another time. However if you look at the timestamps it was made just shortly after my edits on Adrian Zenz, and HEJ never made any contributions to that article before their reverts to me. Thanks once again. ] (]) 19:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Telsho}}, to be honest, I don't think that two instances constitute hounding. What sometimes happens, when an experienced editor comes across some problematic edits by a newer editor, is they might check to see what else they have been doing, and if it isn't in-line with our policies and guidelines, they might undo it. Ideally, they would drop that new editor a line and explain what the problems were, but failing to do that does not amount to hounding, which is really about someone persistently following another person around and harassing them. Can I suggest that you try to figure out what it was with those edits that people had problems with - ask them openly, and be prepared to listen to what they have to say. ]] 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{u|Girth Summit}} for what its worth I did drop them a line, I put a level 1 unsourced warning on their talk page which is very non-bitey and invites the recipient to come and discuss the issue on my talk page if they still have questions after clicking through on the other links. They reverted rather than responding either on their talk page or mine. ] (]) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*Howdy hello {{ping|Telsho}}, I've looked at the evidence, and have a few thoughts. I do not think this is a case of hounding. I know that it doesn't feel good to have your edits reverted, but looking at the page histories, HEJ was at Adrian Zenz before you were. He seems to have it watchlisted, and had edited it days before you first did . For the Singapore article, a single edit does not hounding make. And in both cases, I think you should maybe ask yourself: why would someone else revert those? The answer should be along the lines of examining what content issues the edits had, such as being not neutral in the Zenz article, or poorly sourced for the Singapore article. For the Singapore article, don't worry, your edits aren't gone forever. Its just that you need to discuss the edits with other folks. Making big, bold changes to an article is good, but you'll have to expect pushback from time to time, especially on large or controversial articles. ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Hi @], thanks for your response as well. Apologies if I wasn't being clear in my initial statements as it took me a while to write it up and it wasn't easy being interrogated by two users at the same time which resulted in edit conflicts while publishing my responses. The hounding I was referring to wasn't at Adrian Zenz but in these 2 articles and of course at . These reverts were made only '''after''' I got involved in the Adrian Zenz article. And as i've said previously, HEJ made no edits to both articles before my involvement on Adrian Zenz, so it's safe to assume that it was clearly influenced by tracking through my edits which is why I had brought up ] in this ANI report. Thank you. ] (]) 19:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Telsho}}, I don't think HEJ is acting in bad faith here. He saw that you made a bad edit, and like many editors do, I assume he checked your contributions, and quickly found some problematic edits. This is not against policy, note that ] says {{tq|Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.}} ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:], part of the language in these edits appears to have come, without attribution, from ]. ] has yet to respond to my question regarding whether or not they've ever previously edited Misplaced Pages under another account. ] (]) 19:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::{{u|Telsho}}, A good point is raised here, why did you not attribute the text, and have you ever edited Misplaced Pages under a previous account? If you do not wish to say so publicly, you may email me any details. ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:::@] No, I have not edited under a previous account. I acknowledge that the LKY parts of the article definitely has some issues and I have decided against adding them again, I'm still quite inexperienced in that regard. I'll have to write it differently. ] (]) 19:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	*{{ping|Telsho}} can you please explain why you've decided to ignore any discussion and go ahead and reinsert your contested edits ? There's an active discussion on the talk page which you've yet to participate in despite being pinged multiple times to it. Explain. ] (]) 19:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I wasn't ignoring it, I had a lot of pings that wasn't cleared at the time and I had missed it. I've self-reverted and responded on the talk page. ] (]) 20:05, 13 August 2020 (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)
	* Telsho never alerted me to this discussion, I’m only here because Praxidicae notified me. I have little to add to whats been said above except to note their striking similarity to {{u|Honoredebalzac345}} who created an account on the 8th and immediately jumped into making massive changes to controversial China related articles, including Adrien Zenz. Per ] I think it deserves looking into, they crossed paths on Adrien Zenz with Telsho chiming in to support Honoredebalzac345’s point “Neutral observer here...” and has since made half a dozen edits advancing the same position as Honoredebalzac345. Pinging {{Ping|Loksmythe}} as they were involved in that discussion. ] (]) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			<!--{{hat|1=A wild ] appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}-->
	* Telsho's account is barely a DAY old and the user has made 100+ edits with pretty developed familiarity of WP policies. Something is clearly off here. The Zenz article has attracted a multitude of new SPA accounts since his research came out in late June 2020 on sterilizations, forced abortions, and mandatory birth control on Uyghurs in Xinjiang. ] (]) 21:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.
	::Couldn't care less about Adrian Zenz, which is why I never disputed my reverts there. I only made this report after HEJ decided to follow my edits on unrelated topics. ] (]) 21:29, 13 August 2020 (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)
	<br>
			:Clerical note that this user is not the ] DannyS712. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Gotta admit - Misplaced Pages sure has a way of making new editors feel welcome. ;-)
			== User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article ==
	::Do you guys really believe that editing Misplaced Pages is THAT difficult? That new editors have to spend a days and days learning the ropes and acclimatizing themselves before they jump in? God forbid if an editor learns the ropes quicker than you might expect...
			{{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)
	::Not to mention the lying. That user Telsho didn't "advance the same position" as me. They and I actually disagreed on the talk page section HorseEyeJack posted above. . I literally told them to revert their changes, and also that they cited an unreliable source. So its literally a lie that they and I shared the same position. Its extraordinary how HEJ just lied about this and expected to get away with it.
	::_____________
			:Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Now that being said, I had similar experiences with HEJ - as described by Telsho in their first comment - when I first encountered them on my first few days. It felt like they were going around to the pages I edited and reverting my changes. That they were following me around as a sort of a welcoming committee :P. And I gotta admit that their behavior CAN feel like hounding, as if they're defending their turf as an old editor and not letting new editors into the club. However, I opened talk page discussions with them and we reached consensus on many issues, and the majority of my changes ended up being accepted, even though I found their repeated references to my account's newness on Misplaced Pages rather irritating.
			::Vandalism is vandalism and is ''not'' funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a ''very'' low tolerance for trolls, ''especially'' in contentious topics. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Also worth noting that ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. ] (]) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you ''really'' have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see ]. ] (]) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. ] (]) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Couldn't you have just used inspect element? ] (]) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You're taking a ''very'' long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. ] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «''Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back''» and there are no consequences? ] (]) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. ] (]) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their ]. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. ] (]) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. ] (]) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Editor repeatedly reverting edits ==
	::I bear no ill will towards HEJ. I've found that initiating discussions on talk pages generally helps move the problem forward.
			{{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}}
			This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.!
	::] (]) 21:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			I tried to communicate on ] but editor just went away!
	:::@] You're right, HEJ claims that we were collaborating were nothing more than fabrications. I don't think I'll be around the Adrian Zenz article anytime soon, it's not my forte anyway. What has really opened my eyes though were the hostility and aggressiveness that some established editors have against newer editors, as we've seen with Grandpallama, Praxidicae and of course HEJ. Users like them take Misplaced Pages a little too seriously and I'm sure there are more than meets the eye with their actions. I'm glad the admins were more amiable and understanding towards me and adviced me on the steps going forward in a less antagonistic tone. ] (]) 10:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			For such behavior the editor has been
			This editor last time also pushed me to violate ] ,
	::::{{ec}} Unfortunately, I have to agree with what Telsho has said above. The same that has just happened to Telsho has also happened to me at one point... <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			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.''"
	:::]: I suggest the next time they revert your edits, just open a talk page discussion. Maybe you'll find, like I did, that after discussion they end up agreeing to the vast majority of your changes anyway (exactly the same ones they reverted earlier), with only minor differences in most cases.
			Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand.
	:::Of course, the question then arises, if they agree to the majority of your changes, why revert the WHOLE thing, instead of just manually changing that one small change they disagree with? Why revert something that you say you agree with? Well, I , and they have yet to reply ;-)
			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)
	:::] (]) 10:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Hello, ],
	:::Praxidicae and a few other editors have a real problem with policies like ], ], ], ] and of course ]. I however thank {{u|CaptainEek}} and {{u|Girth Summit}} for helping newcomers to learn the ropes in a friendly and polite manner. <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 10:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			:First ] is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sorry@] actually before this, i went on your to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided . ] (]) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's '''your''' action, not theirs. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::They are the one who started removing/reverting repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are . Plese see ] edit history. ] (]) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". ] is a bright line. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::They edit in group, while i started a discussion but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on ] but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. ] (]) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the ] for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? ] (]) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a ] sanction is appropriate here. - ] (]) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Lol I wasn't even aware there's a policy called 'Assume Good Faith'. That's literally the opposite of what they are doing!
			::? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Yeh, I went to the ] noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my . What do you want to prove through this? ] (]) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::They once that the fact that I was making "such" edits before I had even "learned how to indent (my) replies on the talk page just raises the level of concern". , when they saw that I removed just TWO links (which coincidentally happened to be from The Diplomat) from two different pages (along with some other links I added and removed; and I've added The Diplomat as a source on other places too), they asked me "why target this specific publication?"!!
			*Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with ] from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::The operating principle seems to be literally the opposite of ]: Assume Bad Faith.
			:::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)
	::::] (]) 11:32, 14 August 2020 (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.
	::::Holy shit this bolded line in WP:BITE hits the nail on the head: "''nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility''". Couldn't be more true. ] (]) 11:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is ] , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent ], ] and and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --] (]) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::: {{ec}} {{ping|Honoredebalzac345}} What they are following is ] (Assume bad faith) and ] (Please bite the newbies). <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 11:38, 14 August 2020 (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)
	:::::{{ping|Telsho}} and {{ping|Honoredebalzac345}} If the situation gets worse, feel free to request a ]. <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 11:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			::{{tq| I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above}} That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --] (]) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::], can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if {{they are|Sokoreq}} using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, {{their|Sokoreq}} own behavior. --] (]) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Trolling at ] ==
	::::::{{ping|C2A06}} Well I did a little research and apparently this isn't the first time Horse Eye Jack have been uncooperative with other users. They have constantly edit warred on a wide range of topics, (even when excluding me), have been (note how they are suddenly remorseful and apologetic in the block appeal) and has a ] (which you mentioned) as well as being . I'm not surprised and I'm sure there's more if one looks back even further. ] (]) 12:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Done (for now). - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{IPvandal|2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528}}
			] please. ] ] 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:]? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--] ] 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. ] (]) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Semi-protected now, thanks ] ] (]) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			* IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			**{{ping|Isabelle Belato|Acroterion}} Needs talk page access yanked too.--] ] 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Done. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn ==
			{{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}}
			], so bringing this here. ] and I engaged in an edit war at ], which began as a content dispute but is now more of conduct issue. Less than 12 hours after he was blocked (for ), ] shows up as a brand new single-purpose account to make the for the "win", whilst predictably . How is this not ]?
			I'd be happy to hash out the original content dispute at ] and see if anything needs tweaking at ], but not when there's obvious bad faith tag teaming going on. ] (]) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::{{ping|Telsho}} I totally agree. Also, taking a look back at Praxidicae's editing history, and then was an extremely big violation of ]. And lastly, was particularly unacceptable to refer to constructive criticism as ''nonsense'' and then with the offended editor also informed them of wikihounding. <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 12:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			:It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u|C2A06}} can I suggest to you that your contributions to this thread are not helping to resolve it, and you may not be showing yourself in the best of lights. The diffs you have presented above show Praxidicae doing routine patrolling, removing blatant spam and unreliable sourcing (and, in one case, patiently defending herself from an inappropriate accusation of vandalism). Why you feel the need to involve yourself in this is not clear to me, but you might have been better off sticking to your original stated intention not to {{tq|make any further comments to this discussion}}. ]] 13:00, 14 August 2020 (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)
	:::::::::{{re|Girth Summit}} The reason for my involvement in this ANI thread is because I have seen this type of behaviour become an issue towards me and several other editors. I tried to step away, but it just felt very tempting to involve myself in this discussion. <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 13:07, 14 August 2020 (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)
	::::::::::{{u|C2A06}}, I put it to you that it was unwise to involve yourself in this manner again. In , you were given some very clear guidance about the problems with your editing, and you agreed to back away. I see that you have since included links to some of those prior interactions, as well as a link to {{u|Floquenbeam}}'s warning to you that you were very nearly blocked, on you user page as an example of when you were 'bitten'. I am concerned that you have not fully taken on-board the advice they were given then. ]] 13:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			::::Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. ] (]) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::::{{u|Girth Summit}}, I would just to make it clear that I have taken the advice on board, and I'm sorry for participating in this thread if you don't want me to. I shall step away now. <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 13:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:All I have to say is that I endorse the opening of this ANI thread... I will not make any further comments to this discussion. <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 06:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::'''Proposal''' Close this thread without prejudice to the OP. Nobody has done anything terrible and the OP probably realises by now that this was a bit OTT, but nvm. -] ] 13:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I agree with {{u|Roxy the dog}} this thread should be closed with no action taken before everyone gets out of hand. <span style="color: white; background: red">'''C2A06'''</span> (] • ] • ]) 13:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== Potential Block Evasion by IP 47.67.231.5 (Original IP range 47.69.0.0, first sock IP 80.187.75.118) ==
	== Vandal range ==
			An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ].
	Could someone please help out with ]? I'm on a post-surgery wikibreak so I really don't have the energy to revert all of their contributions myself or file a proper AIV report. Best, ] (] · ]) 18:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:They’re adding unsourced and presumably fictitious closure dates to articles on Pakistani TV stations, and similarly unreferenced end dates on articles about Pakistani TV series ] (]) 22:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
			The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.
	== Persistent Disruptive Editing ==
	Recently, {{ping|JurassicGodzilla}} has been adding content that is unsourced and in violation of ], (, ).
	I have left three warnings at their talk page so far, even offering links to ], ], and ] for them to study but the user has remained unresponsive and continues to restore the same disruptive content, (, , ). The user has even been blocked for 31 hours due to these disruptive edits, (). I've also taken the issue to SPI () due to JurassicGodzilla's recent edits being strikingly similar to the recent edits of ] (, , ), and ] (, , , ). However, the clerk I was assigned declined to user-check the IP's and closed the case without determining if the suspected users were related or not. The pattern with the IP's were similar with JurassicGodzilla: they were warned on their talk pages (without responding), continued restoring the same disruptive content despite warnings, and blocked repeatedly. ] (]) 20:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	== Legal threat, edit warring, and COI editing at Washington State Three Percenters ==
	{{atop|User blocked. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	*]
	*{{user2|TheRogueLibertarian}} has made a legal threat , in addition to edit warring against multiple editors while mentioning that they are themselves a member of the Three Percenters . They briefly dropped by on ], but did not respond after being asked to provide reliable sources to support their position and continued to reimpose their preferred revision. I would take action myself, but am involved. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	** Blocked, but it shouldn't be too hard to talk one's way out of that block, even with the COI edit warring. ] (]) 01:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== IP block needed for 217.71.190.245 ==
	{{atop|User blocked. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:04, 14 August 2020 (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)
	User has been repeatedly warned to refrain from vandalism but continues to do so. Persists in removing Lidiya Litvyak from list of flying aces and ace category without explanation despite being explicitly told to stop.--] (]) 22:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Blocked x 31 hrs for disruptive editing. -] (]) 22:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)		::<small>] - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:::Thank you for the correction on my wording. ] (]) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Harassment and personal attacks ==
			{{u|Riventree}} called another editor and myself a , said to the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an . ] (]) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. ] (]/]) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but ''indef'' for a user who ''has'', generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked ''once''? ] (]) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. ] (]/]) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. ] ] 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. ] (]) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: {{tq|'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA)}}. Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. ] ] 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It looks to me like they understand ''what'' they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the ''why'' (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. ] (]) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Per our own internal classification (e.g. ]/]) it is formally a ], and the article ] is in the {{tl|political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:
			::::::*"The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
			::::::*"Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
			::::::*"When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."
			::::::I am not really sure why these sentences would, ''prima facie'', constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:
			::... that the ''']''' of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the ] perspective?
			:From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.
			:I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (]), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far <del>and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet</del>. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. ] (]/]) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. ] (]) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Amended, thanks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping|JPxG}} Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. ] ] 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. ] (]/]) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. ] (]/]) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what says:
			:::::{{tq|to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:}}
			:::::{{tq|''I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.''}}
			:::: says:
			:::::{{tq|Follow successfully, locate, as in ''I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck''. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.” }}
			:::: says:
			:::::{{tq|If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.}}
			:::::{{tq|''She had spent years trying to track down her parents.''}}
			:::::{{tq|''I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.''}}
			:::::{{tq|''The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.''}}
			:::::{{tq|''There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.''}}
			::::Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said {{tq|Get this politically divisive ] off the damned front page}} and {{tq|And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page.}} Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. ] ] 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says {{tq|"Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there."}} on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. ] (]) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: {{tq|I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment.}} This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			==== Proposal: commute block to topic ban ====
			Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator ]) and JPxG's ] action should not stand, but a ] isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here.
			*'''Support''' as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Lengthen the block if you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to ] ({{diff2|1270933193|1}}, {{diff2|1270933653|2}}. ] (]) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. ] (]/]) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? ] ] 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:
			*:::*: unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the ]. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
			*:::* Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in ].
			*:::*: Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
			*:::*] shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
			*:::**Similarly on other talk pages {{tq|Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?}}
			*:::*] and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
			*:::* Tried to make the article ] more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying {{tq|UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all.}} ].
			*:::Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @]'s concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? ] (]) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least ] broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. ] (]) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. ] (]) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			==== Proposal: Reinstate indef ====
			A discussion is needed on this to prevent ] from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.
			* '''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. ] (]) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' reinstating indef, '''support''' gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --] 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. ] (]/]) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per {{u|Voorts}} and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by {{u|GreenLipstickLesbian}}. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. ] (]) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Anonymous8206 ==
			{{atop|1=Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|Anonymous8206}}
			Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at ] for over a year. Examples: .
			They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. ] (]) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: ]. <s>I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate.</s> ] (]/]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to ] in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. ] (]/]) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			==Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual==
	== Persistent long term defamatory edits to ] ==
			As the title suggests, this includes:
	I've requested indefinite full protection, and am asking here that someone have a look at the edit history. This really could use a lot of rev/deletion. Thanks, ] (]) 02:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:] for one week. This article definitely does ''not'' need ], and we almost '''never''' add indefinite full protection to an article. Every time I see someone request indefinite full protection of an article on the ], it ''screams'' "I have not read the ]", and I get a chuckle. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Long-term pending revision protection may be appropriate. ] (]) 03:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{EC}} ] - That would work, too. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::As a pending changes reviewer with some passing familiarity with the subject of the article, I am happy to help if there are changes to the article lingering in the backlog thereafter: anyone may merely ping me if the wait has grown intolerable (though usually the backlog is addressed fairly reasonably/swiftly these days, it seems to me). ''] ]'' 03:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::Although looking through the recent history, I can now see there would be very little likelihood of validating many edits, as nearly all of the new users there are fairly blatant vandals. Some of those accounts could still benefit from a block, incidentally, but I presume that Oshwah is just working his way forward through them and will get to them in due time. ''] ]'' 05:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Thanks, {{u|Oshwah}}, it's Bob. Chuckle away, but wait until after you've sorted through the edit history. As stated, there's a ton of ] violations that merit permanent concealment. People love their MJ, and they don't like this guy. ] (]) 03:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Hi Bob! I hope you're doing well! Okay, I'll parse through the edit history of the article and get those taken care of. Thanks for the heads up. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|SuvGh}}
	== Requesting a Technical page move when it is contested ==
			::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.
	{{archive top|The RM is in progress and the the dispute that was brought here appears to have moved on, so no further action needed. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 21:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
	What is the right avenue when an editor files a misleading technical page move, which is not on the front page? Per ] there was an ongoing discussion about whether "peace treaty" is an appropriate term. The editor, {{u|Bloom6132}}, then listed the page at WP:RM/TR without without telling anyone, the page was moved to the disputed name, and then, the page was immediately put on the front page in ITN with the disputed name. ] (]) 06:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Not at all. If you looked carefully (before spuriously throwing around unfounded accusations), I did not put my request under the "Uncontroversial technical requests" heading. I placed it under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves", which this clearly is. —] (]) 06:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:And I'm not going to be lectured about "right avenues" from someone who failed to follow the most basic of protocols listed above in red: {{tq|"When you start a discussion about an editor, you <u>must</u> leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose."}} —] (]) 06:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{ping| Bloom6132}} Unfortunately you lied in your submission, because the move was explicitly discussed. Also two separate editors moved it. You had no consensus for this, and misled an admin. ] (]) 07:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Not at all –&nbsp;in fact, it was ''your'' move (i.e. the first one made) that was ''not'' discussed. You never had consensus either. Read up on ], along with ] and ] as by another editor on the article talk page, before making a fool of yourself. And again, ''still'' no notification on my talk page 2 hours later. —] (]) 08:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::I have linked to the discussion in my first comment above. It is odd that you would claim that it was not discussed when the evidence is there in black and white. And re consensus, you alone reverted two separate editors - it was two against one. Choosing to hide that in your "technical request" was misleading. ] (]) 09:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I actually made it quite clear in my "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" that my original title was reverted twice. Nothing hidden there. Also, a reminder that ] for ]. Regardless, a mere two votes does not establish consensus. Again, you should read up on your WP policies before commenting. —] (]) 09:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Speedy close''' - bringing this dispute to ] is way over the top, and I suggest we close this in speedy fashion with a ] to the OP for making a mountain out of a molehill. For the record, Bloom6132 appears to be in the right here - they created the article under the present title, and the listing at ] was to restore to that title. It's true that the article was only two hours old at the time of the first move, but the instructions at ] don't take that into account. The rule is: {{xt|"Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted."}} There is now an RM on this topic at the talk page, and that should be pursued to determine the correct course going forward. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 09:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			*{{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 ].
	{{userlinks|Sdg100}} History of uploading copyvio images and placing wrong license tags on them (15+ notices on their talk), 4 notices for vandal edits. Somehow skirted any block. A history of not providing edit summaries. Has a penchant for messing around with images on BLP's without understanding if they have issues. I reverted their edit with an explanation and they reinstated it back . The image they put up is unreviewed on commons, uploaded by a banned sock ]. Same behavior and pattern of hit and run image changes without explanation , ...too many to list. - ] (]) 10:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)		Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't ''currently'' editing it appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*The fact that after 1000 edits to Misplaced Pages, they have made precisely 1 edit to any Talk namespace, is very concerning. Were I not involved on some of these pages, I would likely give them a final warning for non-communicativeness, and follow up with a block if needed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 14:47, 14 August 2020 (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 ==
	== TPA revocation ==
			{{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)
	Hello,
			: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 ==
	{{u|Abhijitsilindia}} created a userpage which was quickly CSD tagged and deleted on April 21, then recreated yesterday. . {{u|Jimfbleak}} blocked for vandalism but allowed TPA. The user in question, Abhijitsilindia, then posted the promotional content on his talk page instead, which I reverted . The editor has made no edits except adding their promotional content and vandalizing another user's page. I am requesting TPA revocation or possibly a ] block extension.
			{{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:
	Note: I have notified the subject appropriately but I am not sure how useful that is considering they are blocked. I have left a message instead of the template on Jimfbleak's page as he is not the subject of the report but may have something to add. Regards, ] (]) 10:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}}
	:], TPA revoked and indeffed ] - ] 12:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Thanks. ] (]) 12:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Wizmut}}
	== Possible legal threat ==
			{{Userlinks|MIHAIL}}
	While this individual ins't outright saying he wants to sue or will sue, the language he's using looks to be very ]<br><br>
	Likewise, saying I was terminated from two institutions is false - I was never
	terminated for cause, yet Luke and Misplaced Pages insist on promoting that libelous and defamatory
	falsehood made up by Dittrich. If you must insist on continuing to support the libelous and
	defamatory Esquire article, please just inform Misplaced Pages readers that it has also been very
	much disputed, and debunked, and include the reference to Robert Mays' work.
	Also, the link above for "WMF legal team" failed - please give me an actual link so I can talk
	with your attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 (talk • contribs) <br><br>
			{{Userlinks|Magnolia677}}
	It's not like he ].
	He seems to be playing close to the edge here. I haven't said anything to him, and I will notify him about this posting ina moment. Just wanted to bring it to your attention! ]] 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			Dates:
	: That is definitely not a legal threat. --] (]) 15:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:: I couldn't disagree more - accusing Misplaced Pages of promoting libel and defamation then asking to talk to our attorneys creates a chilling effect and, especially considering his past behavior, gives every indication that he wants to take legal action. ]] 16:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{reply to|Wekeepwhatwekill}}, from the first para of ]: {{tq|A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process ''that would target other editors''.}} <small>emphasis added</small> I directed Alexander to the legal team because it is the correct potential legal redress a living person has when they feel they are being defamed. It is their job, in fact (or, at least, one of them). Ealexander3 should speak to them but he has not threatened other editors in any of their BLPN postings. I hope that helps clarify. <small>Side note: since when are necromongers "chilled" by legal threats, anyway?</small>{{FBDB}} ] ] ] 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::It is not their job. Any potential defamation, or anything else legally dubious, in a Misplaced Pages article is the legal responsibility of the editor making that edit, not the Foundation. ] (]) 19:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{reply to|Phil Bridger}}, please see the actual complaints. Alexander's complaint is not that the article defames him but that the article quotes some-one else who defames him. If Alexander wants a legal opinion on the inclusion of a properly-quoted rs, then he does indeed need to speak to WMF legal. He certainly won't get a definitive response from BLPN. ] ] ] 20:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::::::And he certainly won't get a definitive response from the Foundation's legal team. Their job does not include handing out free legal advice to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks them. ] (]) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (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.
	== Tanmoy Roy and TumTum Cab ==
			21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.
	Multiple pages and editors have been created/opened with a variation of Tanmoy Roy Ty and TumTum Cab. Most of these have been speedy deleted for being purely promotional. The webpage tumtumcab.com has already been added to the ]. The following is the list of related editors I could find.
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] {{ping|Ponyo}} here's one that was SPAMU blocked if you are interested. --<b>] ]</b> 17:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	I wouldn't be surprised if there are more that I have not been able to find. I am requesting administrator's and others' help to clean this disruptive editor up. Thank you. ]<sub>]]</sub> 15:21, 14 August 2020 (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 ].
	* I had already SPAMU blocked {{U|Cab TumTum}} and {{U|TumTum Cab}} for this very thing. The proliferation of socks is amazing. --<b>] ]</b> 15:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	* Ima sock block Tanmoy Roy Ty. Tagged user page CSD. --<b>] ]</b> 15:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)
	:Just found another one ]]<sub>]]</sub> 16:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::They're all {{confirmed}} and blocked. Just nuke the creations and duck block on sight if any additional accounts pop up.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:50, 14 August 2020 (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."''
	== ] reported by ] ==
			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.
	Hello Misplaced Pages Administration! Recently, the ], ], and ] articles have been subject to a series of seemingly unconstructive contributions by ]. This fellow Wikipedian collaborator has constantly added onto the official names of the metropolitan statistical areas for Greater Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth, which are contrary to the names designated by the ]. Their for Greater Houston's article appears to have begun on the first of August; they determined the name of the metropolitan area was: "Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land-Galveston". , they also furthermore determined the name of Greater Houston by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget as: "Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land-Galveston-Texas City-Brazoria". In addition, text to the lead infobox's caption was added with no relevant imagery. On August 2, the same person has for the DFW metroplex, insisting that it's name was "Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington-Plano-Irving". They also changed the Greater Houston name in the ] to Houston-Galveston, which it is not. I reverted those contributions and left a disclaimer on their talk page. Today, I reverted their contributions again as they seem to continue allegedly insisting that they are more notable than the governmental agency which provides the name for such metropolitan regions within the United States. I allege edit warring and a disregard for notability, and I desire for the team to look into this issue as soon as humanly possible. Thank you. - ] (]) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (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 ].
	== ] is out of order ==
	{{atop|Both participants have been made aware of infobox DS. Otherwise, as pointed out, this discussion has run its course and is starting to jump the tracks. I counsel Govvy and Cassianto to remain ], and if y'all can't get along, maybe stay away from the other. Should disruption in the realm of infoboxes continue, take to ]. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}}
			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.
	I am fed-up with the guy and his attitude, , can someone have a word with him. ] (]) 15:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:He linked to a long-standing wiki essay, just as you linked to a behavioral guideline. Unless you've got more, this filing is non-actionable and in fact may ] on you, so I suggest withdrawing and closing it. ] (]) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: ''"I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."''
	:{{u|Govvy}}, then maybe you should treat others with the kind of respect you expect others to show you. Calling someone "weird" is offensive, and then expecting someone to apologise to you when they question your DICKish comment...oops, there it is again....is frankly delusional. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{u|Softlavender}}, I'm not a big fan of that essay, even though I understand the sentiment and often see it used appropriately. That said, there is discussion ] suggesting that the current title "Don't be a jerk" shouldn't be used in a discussion. (am I violating that? Answer no, because the advice is not to use that directed at a person which is different than talking about the title). Using the redirect ] technically avoids using the title directly but misses the point. If using "Don't be a jerk" or "Don't be a dick" are to be avoided, then obviously the redirect out to be even more avoided. I trust this is obvious but if it's over the line to tell somebody not to be something, it is clearly worse to use a redirect that suggests they are something. Personally, I think the target should take the advice to heart, but I can sympathize that they weren't happy to be the recipient. While the proposal to retitle it "Be respectful" failed, there's nothing wrong with an editor using that as follows: <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Then the problematic words don't show up in the discussion, but the recipient, if they go to the link will see the stronger wording. ]] 16:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.
	:"Attitude" like attempting to demean other editors with comments like "". I left you the Arbcom notice which warns about the expected standards of discourse and behaviour in IB discussions, and your ''very next post'' goes out of the way to be uncivil to another editor. Most people in that thread are discussing the merits of IBs in civil terms despite the disagreements between one another: '''you''' are the one going out of your way to personalise the situation. Guess who is more in the wrong here? - ] (]) 16:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::Ye right, all the weirdness of late, saying one is weird is not much of an insult, calling someone a dick is just vulgar and offensive. That policy should be ]. All I want is an apology, if people can't manage that, well, clearly there are some deeper issues with people are not my problem. ] (]) 16:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::So, to be clear, you came to this noticeboard seeking to have an administrator force Cassianto to apologize to you? Just want to make sure I follow. ] (]) 16:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::So you're happy to question people's mental health (which is, effectively what you're doing, saying that I am "a weird one"), yet you want to play the victim card over a link to a behavioural essay that has been on the site for over fifteen years? - ] (]) 16:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			:Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to ]-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. ] <sup>]]</sup> 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Calling someone weird is not an attack on their mental health anymore than calling someone a dick is a suggestion that they are literally a human penis. If you really want to initiate an in-depth analysis of your exchange with Govvy, perhaps we should talk about how you edit-warred to remove an infobox and then hid behind a ludicrous distortion of BRD to justify your actions. You should be glad that Govvy filed this ill-fated incivility report instead of reporting you to ANEW. ] (]) 18:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			::It does seem like this could have gone to ]. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from ]. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Perhaps you can pop that somewhere I else don't care about? "{{tq|calling someone a dick is a suggestion that they are literally a human penis}}" PMSL - what a ridiculous stetch of pointlessness that it. If you want to talk about my exchange with Govvy, it was sweet fuck all to do with that article: the thread is about the possibility of IBs on all biographies. If you want to try and play to the peanut gallery, do it with someone who gives a toss about this cess pool: I certainly don't. And if you think ANEW is the place to go, please feel free to waste more of your time on such a silly little act. - ] (]) 18:31, 14 August 2020 (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)
	::::::The talk page discussion was precipitated by your removal of the infobox on ]. You and Govvy edit-warred on ]. Obviously the edit-war and the talk page exchange are related. You never gave a policy-based justification for the removal; instead you've twisted BRD into a pretzel by claiming that the introduction of the infobox into the article back when it was created in 2011 is still somehow a bold edit that you can arbitrarily revert without discussion. And when a pair of editors tried to reinstate the infobox, you reverted both of them without ever taking it to the talk page. Be as hostile as you like, but from a policy standpoint you don't have a leg to stand on. ] (]) 18:49, 14 August 2020 (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.
	:::::::Oh dear... you missed the point of that thread altogether. It’s common that something on a page goes to a project where it’s not about that page, but the wider concept: that’s exactly what’s happened here. Sorry this is beyond your understanding. Anyway, I’m off. Having you refactor reality to play to the peanut gallery isn’t my idea of an enjoyable Friday evening. I’ll let you have ], as I’m sure it’s very important for you. - ] (]) 19:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			::::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 ].
	::::::::That's very generous of you. Govvy explicitly referenced the edit-war right after calling you weird, but feel free to continue with your fiction that the two are unrelated. Sure, you were talking about other things as well, but that hardly renders the edit-war irrelevant. I'm not surprised that you don't appreciate my efforts to provide full context for the benefit of any uninvolved admins who might be reading this, especially since the full context reflects poorly on you. Sure, nothing's going to be done about it right now, but maybe somebody will remember this a few months down the road after you perform another drive-by infobox deletion and then refuse to discuss it at the talk page. Or maybe they won't. Whatever. Have a delightful evening, ] (]) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Lepricavark}}, I wasn't calling them a dick, I was saying they were behaving like a dick. There's a stark difference. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)		::::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.
	::::::It was ambiguous because you only typed their name and "WP:DICK" and Govvy apparently took that to mean that you were calling them a dick. But it's true that you were linking to the 'Don't be a dick' page and I've never known you to be a liar, so I believe you. Besides, this is all far less important than the underlying content issue. It seems to me that this thread has served whatever purpose it had and those who care can go back to talking about the infobox question at the proper location. (I have my own opinions about how the edit war was handled, but frankly I couldn't care less whether an article about an actor has an infobox or not.) ] (]) 19:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you,
	:::::::Can I help it if you don't AGF? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			:::::'''Thelittlefaerie''' ] (]) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::I don't have an opinion on the current dispute. But I have noticed that whether people will accept that distinction usually depends entirely on whether they agree with you or not. ] <sub>]</sub> 19:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			::::::Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page ] (]) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::{{u|Reyk}}, exactly. Do you have an opinion on the non-ambiguous slur of being called "a weird one"? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Assuming this has to do with infoboxes in bio articles, then go forth & open on RFC on that topic. ] (]) 16:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)		:::::::(I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) ] (]) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Aren't infoboxes are under discretionary sanctions. If poor behavior has been repeated many times then you should take it to AE, if not then not.] (]) 17:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	I would humbly suggest that this discussion has run its course. I personally don't see a basis for action of any sort. Cheers. ] (]) 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			* '''Update''': Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Swagsgod ==
	== Persistent accusations of bad faith/personal attacks ==
			{{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)
	{{u|Meethamonkey}} replaced a significant amount of content from ], stating in their edit summary to not "post hear-say purposely to propogate higher castes narratives", that it was a "completely a racist attitude" and to do so is to "vandalise". I reverted their edit and posted a general note regarding censorship on their talk page. Meethamonkey gave a response in which they stated "that the changes you are making are malicious in nature".
			::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 gave another general note, this time regarding the assumption of good faith, and then clarified this guideline when it became clear they misunderstood it. However, Meethamonkey once more became aggressive in tone, stating that "your repeated attempts to edit this page, despite various people telling you of the false nature of your edits, clearly suggest malice , Also hypocrisy since by removing my and other edits that are factually accurate or remedial in nature , you are showing bad faith to everyone". (Note that the mentioned "various people" were sockpuppets which have ].
			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.
	I finally gave a warning regarding their persistent assumption of bad faith, following which they ordered me to "stop you intimidation" and that I was "not fooling anyone".
			], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Meethamonkey clearly has some very strong feelings regarding the content in question, but I do not know how I can be expected to have any meaningful discussion with them about it when they make such serious accusations and insults against me.<br/>] ] 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			== 142.190.62.131 ==
	== Disruptive edit summaries ==
			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)
	*{{userlinks|Yngvadottir}}
			: 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 ==
			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 .
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			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)
			* '''Could I please get some help here?''' IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using {{IP user|2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07}}
			::I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is {{confirmed}} block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been for disruption.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Thanks very much, ]. And as well? ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks {{U|Paul Erik}}, I got that /64 as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== 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)
			:This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. ] (]|]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{ping|Shaggydan}} - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at , I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. ]&thinsp;] 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Shaggydan}} Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. ] (]) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? ] (]) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with ''actual'' personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism.}} You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? ] (]) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.
			:I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many ]s are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.
			:Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.
			:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.
			:He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.
			:I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."
			:Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."
			:29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.
			:On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"
			:These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.
			:I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. ] (]) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information ==
	So, this stinks, but someone's gotta do it. For the past year or so, Yngvadottir has included some variation of "this edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" in just about every edit summary she leaves. I recently brought this up on her talk page, explaining that I found it annoying (cluttering page history, etc), and that it's generally disruptive. And apparently I'm not the first to do so (two older threads: and ). Despite multiple people independently bringing this up (including one explicitly pointing at ]), Yngvadottir apparently refuses to cease this. As I said to her, {{tq|"If you can't swallow the minimal amount of pride it takes to stop doing so, then you shouldn't be editing here at all."}} To add to that, if your disdain for the WMF is interfering with your day-to-day editing here, then you should step away until you can sufficiently compartmentalize the two.
			*{{userlinks|93.204.189.212}}
			*{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA}}
			*{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06}}
			Those three accounts all appear to be the same person, who is doing mass removal of information with minimal to no notes. I have reverted some of their edits on ] (because they removed information that I added and sourced myself), but user . After quickly going through their other edits, it doesn't appear they are making any constructive edits. I'd love some help dealing with this issue.--] ] 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	So yeah, this stinks. Yngavadottir has been a great contributor to Misplaced Pages, but let's be honest: if a new editor came along and pulled a stunt like this (whether or not it had anything to do with the WMF), there'd be no hesitation about what to do. There are times and places to air grievances about the WMF (a lot of us, me included, have plenty of them), but not like this. There needs to be an indefinite (not infinite) block in place, at least from the Article and Talk: namespaces, until Yngvadottir is willing to stop spamming edit summaries in this way. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 20:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:If I might ask a clarifying question: you are suggesting blocking an admittedly great contributor, whose edit summaries are otherwise useful and appropriate, for making you read an extra sentence that is neutrally worded and hints at grievances with the WMF? ] (]) 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::That's not a clarifying question; it's a question meant to oversimplify the matter and frame it in a negative light. If you read what I wrote, the answer is pretty obvious. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 20:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::I was hoping it might clarify your thinking on the subject. Cheers. ] (]) 20:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			== Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP ==
	:As I have said on my user talk, I disagree that someone had to report this, and I have just reviewed ] and still do not see any violation in my appended disclaimer. I have severely cut back my contributions here for reasons of personal concience; I will state here for clarity that neither my edit summaries nor my responses to those who have raised the issue with me have been intended to impose my view on the matter on others and whether and how they continue to contribute. As such, in my view, if my addition of a disclaimer to most of my edit summaries (sometimes I forget, or use "new section" and it isn't possible) are causing any disruption to watchlists or increase in reading for recent-change patrollers, I consider it acceptably small and worth it for my being able to continue contributing here. (It should perhaps be noted that my edit summaries have always tended to be long, since I usually find myself editing relatively holistically and have a lot to sum up, so I'm glad of the unintended side-effect of the WMF increasing the size of the summary field to help out editors in languages with a lot of diacritics&nbsp;... and that often means someone has to read a few lines of meat and potatoes summary before they come to my disclaimer, which I often have to truncate to fit in. I think the length of the meat and potatoes bit is a more legitimate complaint, since there are better reasons for reading that bit.) ] (]) 20:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I don't see how this is disruptive; it's a far cry from anything one would consider polemical. You would have a better case if it were the only thing she left in her edit summary, but that's not what's happening. These are beneficial edits with beneficial edit summaries, neither of which are violating ''policy''. ] 20:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:{{u|Deacon Vorbis}}, this is in the best and finest traditions of ]. While it may not meet with your approval it seems to be that {{U|Yngvadottir}} is indulging in a quiet protest using free speech.
	:This has been an unusually fast escalation. What is your motivation? ] ] 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::{{re|Timtrent}} I know next to nothing about Roman history (I had to click that link to even know this was a Roman history reference), and I don't really know what in there is supposed to apply to this situation. In any case, the initial complaint was ~9 months ago, the second was ~3 months ago, and mine was was met with yet another similar response to the first two. That's a pretty generous timeframe. What good would waiting do? What else could I have done to get it to stop? My motivation is getting the clutter out of article histories and off of watchlists (mine in particular). It's {{em|not}} a quiet protest though, it's shouting it at everyone whose watchlist is crossed. ] says:
	::{{tq2|Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the ], as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article ] should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see ]).}}
	::While this doesn't mention edit summaries explicitly, the intent seems clear. We have project and user space to talk about this stuff. Doing so in every single edit summary is not the place for it. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::In case there is room for doubt, which I mistyped as 'donut', I do not endorse what you have decided to do here. I had read your reasons with full attention. I shall not get those moments of my life back. Nor these. ] ] 21:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::<small>{{re|Deacon Vorbis}} During the Second Punic War, Cato the Elder would end most of his speeches with "]" (lit. Carthage must be destroyed) regardless of how well it fit the rhetorical flow. It's a bit of a meme among Latinists. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 22:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)</small>
	Comes off as a little silly or childish and outside the actual purpose of edit summaries but I am not seeing an direct violation of policy. I would suggest though if multiple people have brought it up as something of concern to maybe take that to heart. ] (]) 20:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	], would you not find it less taxing to have this disclaimer on your user page instead of in every edit summary? Making an edit isn't showing support for the WMF, it's a neutral act. There's plenty of opportunity for us to tackle issues presented by the WMF, by getting involved in relevant discussions at the Village Pump and so on. I can understand anger at the WMF; i've taken out that anger myself in a way that got me indeffed. On an encyclopedia that's also a community it's not worth frustrating your fellow editors in order to get a point across about something out of their control. I can't see you getting blocked for your edit summary appendages, but please consider an alternative <s>less disruptive</s> way of protesting. Kindest regards, ] (]) 21:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Thank you for the suggestion, but my reason for adding the statement to my edit summaries is that the WMF does use activity metrics to bolster its claims, and thus takes credit for our work. It is a personal statement that enables me to square my continuing contributions with my conscience. No blanket statement except a retirement banner would work for me, personally. ] (]) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	::I find the statement irritating (because I have to read it each time in order to identify that I don't need to read it) but not disruptive. I think Yngvadottir's extensive contributions to the encyclopedia outweigh the irritation factor. ]&nbsp;] 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::Yngvadottir, thanks for responding. I understand how that would aggrieve a dedicated editor such as yourself. Is it not enough however just to feel the joy of contributing to Misplaced Pages? It can sometimes help to just go back to basics, and focus on the reasons why we as editors enjoy making edits. The WMF is simply a tool for doing the administrative work that many of us would rather not do. Let them take the credit, our joy comes from the shared knowledge that we are building an encyclopedia together. As you can see in this discussion, many editors recognise your extensive contributions, please don't let the WMF jade your experience here. I feel you might find it freeing to write a standard length edit summary. ] (]) 21:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
			Apologies if this is the incorrect location, ] is a BLP violation and may need redacting. ] (]) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*So DV says {{green|"''If you can't swallow the minimal amount of pride it takes to stop doing so, then you shouldn't be editing here at all''"}}, but thinks the problem is with Yd? I'm constantly stunned by the lack of self-awareness some people have. I guess the word "disruption" has finally lost its last little tiny shred of meaning. --(this edit is not an endorsement of the dismal swamp ANI has become) ] (]) 21:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*:You know, if you want to disagree with me, fine, but do it without the snide fucking remark about how little self awareness you think I have. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::But it's integral to the disruption you're causing. I thought you'd want to know. --] (]) 21:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::: I do not think they are causing any disruption. This is a perfectly legitimate request, even if the community does not agree at this point.--] (]) 21:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*::That is an interesting use of the universal word in {{tq|the snide fucking remark}}. Not cool. ] ] 21:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*Good grief... are we having to go into censorship and thought police action now? Per Floq. Does this use of free speech in an edit summary reach the level of disruption? No. Not even close. This thread is even more of a time sink than the waste of space I had to discuss matters with further up the page. - ] (]) 21:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*It's not censorship. It's just the wrong place for the comments. If someone were selling a car in their edit summaries, I don't think that would be against policy either, but I think we'd block if they kept doing it. Basically yeah, it's a ] and ] issue. Obviously, a polite request hasn't done the job. I think it would be best if wiki-friends counselled that it would be best to stop using edit summaries in this way. All Empires must fall, but this isn't the way to wage the war. ] (]) 21:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	**It's not censorship, it's just telling someone they can't say something because of the content of their speech. --] (]) 22:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
	*I agree with the above editors, including the one that called me a {{tq|waste of space}}, that these edit summaries are not a matter for ANI. They may seem mildly annoying, but they are not actually harmful or disruptive. I think any experienced editor who knows something of the behind-the-scenes politics of the WMF can sympathize with Yngvadottir's sentiments. I don't think OP did anything wrong by asking Yngvadottir to stop, but Yngvadottir was likewise within her rights to politely decline. And that is where the matter should have ended. ] (]) 22:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 22:54, 22 January 2025

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Noticeboard archives

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

• Portuguese Newfoundland on WP:PROFRINGE and WP:OR

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked this Battle of Naband which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? scope_creep 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:

• 1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
• 2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
• 3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
• 4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
• 5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
• 6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
• 7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.

Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts". Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.

I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.

I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.

Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails WP:GNG doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass WP:GNG and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example

A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".

I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have WP:SYNTH issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass WP:GNG before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that is in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the original research policy. I propose and support a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating WP:OR, they gain that necessary understanding/competence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• SUPPORT ban from article creation. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. scope_creep 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support article creation ban. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support Ban. Sr. Blud (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with Gaming the system. Sr. Blud (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored. I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! Sr. Blud (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I dunno. Sr. Blud (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lucanzo (1590). There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. scope_creep 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. scope_creep 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Me (DragonofBatley)

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

Notifying other editors from the wider discussions @PamD:, @Noswall59:, @Rupples:, @Crouch, Swale:, @KeithD:, @SchroCat:, @Tryptofish:, @Cremastra: and @Voice of Clam:. If I missed anyone else sorry DragonofBatley (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Also this discussion: Special:PermanentLink/1269282704#Dragon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. I'm glad to see that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.

I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. WP:JAN25 is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, then we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.

I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to draft articles in userspace and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.

Happy editing, Cremastra (u — c) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as User:DragonofBatley/Interesting topics list. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

These are good points.

However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI-like thing may be in order. WP:Failed verification cleanup project, anyone? Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add DragonofBatley (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC DragonofBatley (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• DragonofBatley has agreed to a voluntary editing restriction to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will DragonofBatley (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• @DragonofBatley: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for All Saints Church, Wellington. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see any new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) KJP1 has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you All Saints Church, Wellington. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). KJP1 provided a possible routemap for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they understand source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements and that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's a great point, you're right, @SchroCat. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I responded to @Voorts earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with WP:Geoland WP:Notability and WP:Sourcing. Also conflict edit was not directed at @SchroCat, there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's All Saints Church, Wellington was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from Listed buildings in Wellington, Shropshire and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.

  And Dragon's version as submitted to AfC also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. PamD 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on spectrum quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on deaf ears. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ignoring feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in Austism, Aspergers and cognitive disability. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. Rupples (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley, the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that, I am just trying to understand not with yourself @Rupples or @Voorts. You two have been very patient and understanding. I was more trying to engage a reply with @Schazjmd and @SchroCat's earlier remarks above. But there seems to be an issue with building reply after reply so I am hoping now they can see the section around here and on my user page. I do not like to announce disabilites but I want to put them forward to hopefully engage some understanding that some of the edits or replies I have made are not out of spite or trolling. Just sometimes it can be hard and I try to open up where appropriate. Now is the best time as I am getting a lot of things to read and feel Voorts solution was enough to agree to. Also I am not looking to fall out with editors or make a war and peace. Just asking for some understanding aside from addressing other issues too. That is all. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

As stated above, my thoughts are present at KJP1’s talk page. In sum, I have seen three discernible issues: (1) content quality issues; (2) civility and general conduct; and (3) potential sock-puppetry. I will leave out (3) as others seem content to discount that and I note he has repeatedly denied evading a ban.

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

Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above.

For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, this needs to be a final warning in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -Noswall59 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).

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

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

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

I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. Cremastra (u — c) 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to point to WP:Zeroth law of Misplaced Pages: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).

I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at User_talk:KJP1#Dragon and Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity, and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked.

I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.

Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for Chew Stoke, which is also the example of a lead in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.

Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - removing a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and taking an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.

The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, All Saints Church, Wellington (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).

It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.

Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. PamD 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work

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

I've got some experience of CCI investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the 400-odd articles that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I am an interested editor. Cremastra (u — c) 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. PamD 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/WP:ROPE in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).

To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @PamD has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the disability act. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? PamD 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. Sound of evil laughter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

How's this draft proposal: DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace, converting redirects to articles, or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.

Having seen Dragon's work on Holme Lacy yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.

And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. PamD 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: Adding an infobox? Adding a few words about local authority area? Adding a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. PamD 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to Trafford, never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. PamD 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the question PamD. To clarify, I meant any expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing anywhere on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " PamD 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. @KJP1 what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? Cremastra (u — c) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Cremastra - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hold on. This goes much further than @Voorts wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? Rupples (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at Trafford. I've lost patience. PamD 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:

1. No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
2. No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
3. No editing in mainspace.

PamD 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):

Option A: DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.

Option B: DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.

Option C: DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.

The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but would personally favour Option B. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into Trafford, a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1: I made some changes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

p.s. Trafford this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? Rupples (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1 and @Rupples: option C amended below. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? PamD 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s)

Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus.

DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s): Option A: DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC. Option B: DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD. Option C: DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except: (1) to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded; (2) to comment in AfD discussions or to oppose PRODs or CSDs regarding those articles; or (3) to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles. The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Uninvolved editors Oppose all. I would have voted Option B, but the user demonstated enough maturity and self-criticism, meaning he's willing to improve his long-term contribution. Moreover, even if it could have been embarrassing to admit, he also cared enough to inform us he's on the spectrum, and as a neurodivergent myself, I know that's hard. My two cents go to DragonofBatley. You're welcome! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Proposal: Could we maybe allow DoB to continue editing mainspace if, and only if, any additions/edits they make are supported by a reference, to which the quote that supports the edit must be added. That will make it easier for us to double check their work and allow DoB to refine their skills in supporting their edits.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Involved editors @KJP1, Cremastra, Rupples, PamD, DragonofBatley, Crouch, Swale, SchroCat, Tryptofish, and Noswall59. (Apologies if I missed anyone.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Support option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also support option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. Oppose option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Oppose all, as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC) C if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Prefer the less stringent option A because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on Trafford, all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. Rupples (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with Holme Lacy and Dawley Town Hall. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. DragonofBatley (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC) It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring WP:ROPE, I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - SchroCat (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) @SchroCat at this point. I can see you do not like me. I can see this from both your wording of "sub-standard crap" and "go for a ban". Some choice wording and actions. I've already answered enough but your clearly made up your mind. Nothing else will convince you. Perhaps you should not engage further with me at this point. Cause nothing I say or do seems to provide enough evidence to quell your subtle dislike of me. Prehaps you should just let the other editors handle it. Im not gonna apologise further and try to change your opinion of me. I wont reply further to you at this point. Your wording is coming across as aggressive and threating to me. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Absolute nonsense. I neither like nor dislike you. I have major concerns over your ability to edit and I stand by my judgement of your output. I have further concerns over your decision to create category pages and work on categories while the thread was going on rather than start clearing up the mess you’ve made. All you’ve done is provide more evidence that you lack the ability to edit within the guidelines. Again, this is nothing to do with liking or not liking you as an individual (I’m entirely ambivalent about you) but it is about your output and the additional time and effort you are making others go through to tidy up the mess you’ve made. SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think I would be happier if:

1. there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400).
2. I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB prove to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). PamD 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• @KJP1 and Cremastra: Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.|  – Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, before posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be.

Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.

I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community consensus to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.

I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY also apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the intermittent explosive disorder. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance). – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Est. 2021 He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. PamD 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @KJP1, I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too Sensory overload for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but WP:CONSENSUS. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case.

The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with structure while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe structure to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I encouraged KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in.

I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time?

They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them.

Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors.

TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed there's User:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB. Cremastra (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cremastra Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @DragonofBatley - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs:

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

Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. E_F 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. E_F 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You can add this to the page in question – {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} – or you can add this to a specific citation – {{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}} – to keep the bot away. See -- Stopping the bot from editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that Citation bot did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on Ludlow Massacre, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot is not a user script, but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078

"All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."

-WP:Bot policy Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the person who is using the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of these seem to have been invoked by Abductive, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee (Personal attack removed). Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493

Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.

These edits were suggested by the following user:

• User:Whoop whoop pull up

Legend of 14 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Found another bad date in another article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by User:Abductive

Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Found another bad date in another article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)

Suggested by user:

• User:Abductive

Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates Legend of 14 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Citation bot is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it is not necessarily an error. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is still about Citation bot. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by User:Spinixster. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? Legend of 14 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can see here the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."

-WP:Bot policy

WP:Citing sources is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be best if the bad source was removed, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you quote the part of WP:RS which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. this diff? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about User:Citation bot, not User:Abductive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about your use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOTACC specifically says The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot. E_F 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.

As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) moved down from the middle of the above comment (original diff). – 2804:F1...CF:5599 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right?? Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Unsupervised bot and script use has damaged thousands of articles. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix 2022 deaths in the United States (July–December).... XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

We're into the second batch of ReferenceExpander edits to check and clean up. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. Both should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here neither. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOTP is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.

• Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
  • WP:BOTACC says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
  • BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of WP:ROLE. Now, ROLE does have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple managers", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're developed and maintained by a team of people (rather than ones that can be used by multiple people).
  • Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to 50,000 pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the only people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they were, in fact, approved implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
  • WP:BOTCOMM seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
  • WP:BOTREQUIRE says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
  • WP:BOTCONFIG provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
• Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
  • WP:BOTMULTIOP says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved despite the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).

Whoop whoop pull up 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.

"Both should take reponsibility"

-Phil Bridger at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? Whoop whoop pull up 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.

Policy is very clear, don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Or, as the same page quoted above puts it: Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot has not been approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at User:Citation bot § Bot approval. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. Folly Mox (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

☝🏽It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against Abductive or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion somewhere specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping AManWithNoPlan, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots and checking the results.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, Folly Mox (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots" Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. CNC (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

  Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says "datePublished":"2023-02-25T18:46:42+00:00",.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  1. Not a news article.

  2. Intention is irrelevant. These edits are disruptive regardless.

  3. Maybe program it to not add dates to modified works. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and assume good faith, you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. jolielover♥talk 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. Here, for example, they say: Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. . You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. C F A 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. (1, 2, 3, 4 5, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). jolielover♥talk 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the Teahouse (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments demanding that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. jolielover♥talk 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. C F A 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@CFA: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.

@Jolielover: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are obvious vandalism.

Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway, You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents - right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you will stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you might stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. jolielover♥talk 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @PEPSI697: A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page here, here and here. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at WP:YOUNG and WP:REALWORLD because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on your user talk page that you get stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been previously been warned about. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if you sometimes don't understand what some words mean, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to WP:AIV. jolielover♥talk 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future

I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.

1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content.

2: I see that other contributors on Misplaced Pages leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one.

3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly?

Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool.

2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection.

3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. jolielover♥talk 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I accept your apology. jolielover♥talk 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Response and apology from PEPSI697

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

I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the WP:PRIMER or looking at the task center? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion.

Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. NewBorders (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There is guidance on how to use the {{Talk header}} found on its documentation page at Template:Talk header#Should this be added to every talk page? and also at WP:TALKLEAD. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in WP:CONTRIBUTE and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like WP:GUILD, WP:DEORPHAN, WP:HELPWP, WP:URA, WP:RANPP for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at WP:RAILWAY or WP:STATIONS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with Bell railway station, Melbourne, but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get Preston railway station, Melbourne article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Good idea there. I agree that me, Jolielover and the others involved resolved this issue. I absolutely agree with this idea to give a firm warning on my talk page. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you absolutely agree with isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-neutral paid editor

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

That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:

• Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
• Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
• - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
• Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.

An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably WP:NOTHERE. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

done Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly WP:GF reasons for them.

1. By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as "has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world" and "The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality" + "The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"? Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate WP:NOTNEWS and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a very strong statement cited to...an obscure book, seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
2. Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally WP:RECENT, and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. If that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, then it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
3. Do you really think phrases like "China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments." are consistent with WP:NPOV? Really? Maybe cutting all of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
4. That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently an internal publication of the Central Bank of Hungary. It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.

In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably WP:NOTHERE" seems downright Kafkaesque. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns here? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROMOTIONAL manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that WP:PAID is supposed to prevent. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like Climate change, you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't bad by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply not good enough or relevant enough for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.

Given this context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not obligated to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @EMsmile's paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @Andrewjlockley provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/

My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. TERSEYES (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding: Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 TERSEYES (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• An editor with a declared COI should never be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the strongly discouraged wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Aquillion So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this (Redacted)?

  Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that if Earth System Governance is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering is not even seen anywhere on their front page - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as Research Framework. The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban) - that would be wrong. See WP:SELFCITE; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we want editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS Having a perspective on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. WP:PAID editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then WP:COI needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.

It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah WP:PAID editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that every edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it strictly barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's not the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change strongly discouraged to prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism). I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though.

Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be manually saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I need to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to this case, rather than a general statement.

Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this Uh, guys? Does WP:OUTING mean nothing to you? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger - I think that sanction should be swiftly applied. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. TiggerJay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: @InformationToKnowledge:, do not attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with anyone's real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. Liz 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the principles of privacy still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. TiggerJay (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Could we get an edit to WP:OUTTING for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG back to Andrewjlockley

I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. However, that does not change the fact she has been one of a literal handful of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in WikiProject: Climate change over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.

With that in mind, I would like to say I have great difficulty assuming WP:GF here - not when the OP editor (Redacted), which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective and when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.

I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of Chapter 16 of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.

P.S. This is really not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.

All of this is pertinent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that EMSmile has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that Andrewjlockley is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. WP:OUTING concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.

The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If InformationToKnowledge is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be they both should be though.

Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. TiggerJay (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Please reread WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS. The suggestion that being a published academic on a subject constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of WP:EXTERNALREL, which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

as per (Redacted) is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.

Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.

If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for WP:COI that arises as a result.
• With regards to SRM has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the version of 15 May 2024). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
• AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for more SRM research in their day job (Redacted). Also, User:Thisredrock explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be against doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
• I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by User:Thisredrock on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
• Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery orDARVO, but I'll respond anyway.

I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.

Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I wish to clarify the relationship between the Earth System Governance project (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the campaign for a 'Non-use Agreement' (NUA) on solar radiation modification (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.

Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was the founder of ESG and its first chair, for ten years, and is the editor in chief of its journall. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is a member of ESG's 11-member leadership board , one of five authors of its current implementation plan , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of ESG's series of short books. By quick count, of the other 14 authors on the NUA's founding paper, one other is on the governing board, at least eight are lead faculty, at least two are senior research fellows, and one is among the journal's six editors.

In the other direction, of ESG's 11-member governing board, eight have signed the NUA sign-on statement.

The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. TERSEYES (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@TERSEYES, would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? TiggerJay (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.

For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an oversight on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? jp×g🗯️ 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  ... gonna ask in talk page of WP:OUTTING if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Bushranger, I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. Liz 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz: the diff of them placing it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is here - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named User:Johnjacobjingleheimer, then it constitutes WP:OUTING (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. jp×g🗯️ 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at WP:OUTTING think it would be easier to avoid.

  opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.

  alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on their admission of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't WP:OUTING people or contacting their employers. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.

  Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.

  BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,

  the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.

  AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.

  Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thisredrock (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikimedian in Residence apply?

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

what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

My situation is totally different to @EMsmile. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @EMsmile adjusting the page to favour her client (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the SRM article here. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per WP:DUE.

Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding WP:OUTTING- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.

Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile

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

Oppose block, support WP:TROUTing EMS for almost WP:OUTTING, WP:TROUTing AJL for aggressive interactions, warning ITK for WP:OUTTING.- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.

the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically WP:WIRCOI suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

From WP:WIRCOI WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages - this seems not to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.

want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi appliesBluethricecreamman (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by Bluethricecreamman - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. Thisredrock (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. Bluethricecreamman has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether EMsmile was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see User:EMsmile apologize for the WP:OUTING that occurred. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. EMsmile (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (uninvolved) there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in simple ignorance (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not WP:PUNISH).

That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, it fails a DUCK test, and looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor. What I see is a properly disclosed WP:PAID editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors. Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't WP:CPUSH going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :TiggerJay (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe everyone gets WP:TROUTs at this point and we move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.

However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for 'potential civil-POV which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like this might come off is overly whitewashing, but China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations. but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does call into need for a closer look, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group

mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, WP:NOTTHEM applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that WP:PAID only strongly discourages paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and IMO unthinkable They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.
  I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I am much more concerned about undeclared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. Liz 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  I meant meat puppet. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates with no opinion on indef block at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello User:Clayoquot, we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of WikiProject Climate Change. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (Earth System Governance Project (which is an alliance), nor the concept earth system governance itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website.

FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: earth system governance and Earth System Governance Project, then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).

FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.

If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for Earth System Governance Project apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from earth system governance? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?

Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.

Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks in this thread but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." EMsmile (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community. This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to WP:COI/N, or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

did report to WP:COI/N Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they do make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. edits that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:COI/N put this back into our court. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile

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

The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its direct affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from citing the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)?

By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on opposition to SRM research (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).

SRM is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)

I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those grey areas while editing the solar radiation modification article as mentioned above by User:North8000. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the solar radiation modification article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged").

Oh and should the section on my profile page where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

For the topic ban, you can add it to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about WP:DUE. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being a pioneer in opposing SRM research is sourced... to ETC Group itself). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a small set of exemptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.

For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. EMsmile (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at Talk:Solar radiation modification violated WP:PAYTALK quite egregiously. Do you disagree?

Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I tried to make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.

Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."

I believe my edits for the solar radiation modification article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

(involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before). To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Femke, I've modified the Frank Biermann article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion.

I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the Earth System Governance Project article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the solar radiation modification article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page here. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a topic ban or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like Solar radiation management. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction.

At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a edit request to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for earth system governance" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be extended to future employers too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Femke. jp×g🗯️ 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support and will withdraw my proposal above. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Femke. also this discussion has gone too long and is nearly 0.5 WP:TOMATs long. We should end it somehow, and some kinda editting restriction is warranted at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as proposer and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Voluntary restrictions

@EMsmile: Just clarifying

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

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

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:

• Comment I notify other voters that the nominator has been banned on Commons and has been insulting on this page towards another user. (at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Popeye, Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Hajji and Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Jimmy Carter 2)

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. — E_F 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. E_F 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. E_F 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:

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

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. E_F 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

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

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

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

Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. Liz 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at Talk:Aubrey Plaza, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says, This complaint is not about the content directly. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• There have been numerous edits to the Aubrey Plaza article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits.
• Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family.
  • The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP 94.63.205.236. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
  • @Sundayclose: Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
  • During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, 74.12.250.57, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, 2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
  • The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
  • On 10 January, @Religião, Política e Futebol: made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
  • Another IP, 2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
  • On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
  • On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
  • Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
  • On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
  • Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
  • I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
• In regards to the mention of Baena's suicide, this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
  • @DiaMali: did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
  • Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
  • The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when @Ibeaa: removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
  • On 7 January, IP 2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196 adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
  • The next user to re-add the info was @ZanderAlbatraz1145:, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
  • The IP 2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8 removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
  • @Sundayclose: reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
  • Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
  • Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing committed suicide for the first time in this edit, which IP 50.71.82.63 fixed. Diff:
  • Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information five times each, no edit reasons in sight.
    • Zander: (above 1), 2, 3, 4, 5
    • Ibeaa: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  • I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
  • Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
  • On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
  • Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
  • Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
  • Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is accurate and properly sourced. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the Jeff Baena article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff:
  • Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
  • Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. Archive.
    • I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
  • After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
  • I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
  • Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem vital enough to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:

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

This is a lot of data. But it seems like if edit-warring is the problem, a complaint filed at WP:ANEW or a request for page protection at WP:RFP would be more suitable than ANI. Liz 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to acknowledge the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. Kingsif (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: 30 day block by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Adakiko (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Death threat left after block. Talk page access? Adakiko (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• TPA removed. Liz 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. 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 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to Anglo-Saxon mission which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. Manannan67 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to Mariana de Jesús Torres. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." Manannan67 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. Manannan67 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Naniwoofg

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

Can we get a follow-up on this? @Naniwoofg has failed to respond to all inquiries on affected article talk pages, their user talk page, and the Tambayan PH talk page. We have been reverting their unexplained and unusual edits to the infoboxes of several Philippine road and building articles back and forth for the past few days. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Support sanctioning this user. One latest questionable edit is on Pulilan article, which I partially fixed. Naniwoofg claimed to had updated the infobox images, but the user used an image of the Pulilan Church before the 2019 renovation. I replaced Naniwoofg's choice of the church image with the one image taken after the renovation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the User talk page, e.g. about normalising separatist states, and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in the corresponding topic.

I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via de facto statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often replicated by other contributors, which I cannot even comment on. Unas964 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is a link to the last time this was raised here.

The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine).

I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that Unas964 (talk · contribs) should adhere to WP:AGF while Cherkash (talk · contribs) needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. Unas964 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their de facto state. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a fact that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes.

Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map.

As a corollary it is in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @Cherkash - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @Unas964 has seriously failed to assume good faith by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I don't have the terms backward there. I literally stated that De jure, there's no Taiwan, and also what I meant for facts, the de facto state of the world. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires competence. // and no, it is not a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine, as de jure the Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union, as I had already wrote, because de jure the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had de facto. Do better. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. CMD (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and Misplaced Pages:AGF. In theory, that does not align with Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT, since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the Russo-Ukrainian_War the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. Unas964 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration Unas964 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is fast reaching WP:NOTFORUM territory. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We also have WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. here). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the Khmer Rouge terror, Tiananmen Square massacre, Holocaust and 9/11 attacks by some de facto laws. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only Holodomor, the genocide of Crimean Tatars and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. Asharshylyk). That renders de facto maps a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality.

Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. Unas964 (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

de facto laws? You're way too confused. de jure (Latin for 'by (some country's) law') is the total opposite of de facto (Latin for 'by facts, in reality'). That's the point. Nice list of stuff tho. Have fun. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, Unas964? Liz 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (WP:RUSUKR,Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some consensus or de facto bodrers pretexts, then indeed it has no sense.

  If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. Unas964 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit concerned that Unas964 has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes continuing to argue about the map, calling a warning from another editor regarding WP:CANVAS "pro-Russian attacks." this whole thing at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to WP:RGW was reverted with an edit summary of pro-Russian spam deleted - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposal - short duration block for Unas964

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

Support I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically this whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My concern is the sock. Edward Myer, do you promise never to sock again? GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

• JEIT BRANDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

---

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

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.

• Are we looking at the same editor, CoffeeCrumbs? Rosguill never unblocked this editor but Beeblebrox did back in December. Liz 01:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

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

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

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

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

• This sequence of edits to List of media notable for being in development hell:
  • Edit summary: men don’t be utterly deprived and ruin women’s lives by being a sex pest challenge (don’t revert if you’re a man, you’re disgusting and I want nothing to do with you guys)
  • Edit summary: Undid revision 1270571008 by C.Fred (talk) how many more women are going to be hurt by continuing to let men like this in the game industry
• To Dawn M. Bennett, removing an image with the edit summary she has cleavage, which means men will want to screw her if they see the image
• To her own user talk, removing a thread that included warnings with the edit summary please leave me alone, im trying to lessen my suffering as a woman in a male-dominated world

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

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

I was going to suggest that if there's any founded concerns a trans woman would get bitten in this hypothetical interaction then we should probably just WP:NOTHERE right now. However then I went and looked at the diffs in question and the discussion that was on the user's talk page and I have to ask: has anyone considered this might all be a troll? Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

perhaps my useful non-gender related edits might tip you off to the fact that im not a troll? here’s something non-gender related articles i fixed up: Monster-taming game, Cookie Run: Kingdom, Acer Aspire One Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a straightforward WP:RGW or WP:NOTTHERAPY block. Misplaced Pages quite a number of women editors and they seem to be fine and don't seem to experience overt persecution. I just don't see how this user can reasonably be expected to collaborate with others, a core requirement of Misplaced Pages editing, if they're just going to accuse everyone else of being misogynists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. It's the edits themselves not really matching up to the complaints in the edit summary that jumps out at me. Like two of the diffs are them removing mention to a man who was accused of sexual assault complaining that men must not revert the deletion because of misogyny. Another was removing a picture of an, honestly, modestly dressed woman in game development with a claim that it would make men horny. The discrepancy between what is being deleted and the justifications being given is rather striking. However whether this is a sincerely unwell person or a troll feigning distress, either way, I don't think this editor is here to write an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Poe's law in action. I think it's best to assume good faith that that this is a real person in serious mental distress rather than a troll though, though they should be blocked either way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

just because i don’t want women to be treated like sh*t doesn’t mean i deserve to be thrown in a psych ward, or that im in any sort of “distress”. does it look like im in distress right now? no, and I haven’t been. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@TTYDDoopliss Hrm. So is the inference that you willingly and knowingly made those uncivil edits, so you should be at the least topic banned from gender issues, broadly construed, if not blocked indefinitely? —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

again, I would take the topic ban over an indef any day. I have worth to bring here, and good intentions. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think you're in any sort of distress at all. As I think, rather, that you are trolling Misplaced Pages and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Surprised they weren't blocked after calling the vast majority of en.wiki contributors "nerdy men". E_F 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

that’s… not an insult? just an observation Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean the shoe fits here. Any time I mention that I have editing[REDACTED] as a hobby I get called a nerd. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but we aren’t all “nerdy men”, albeit maybe a bit nerdy. Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point is I haven’t seem them collaborate constructively yet. E_F 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

“Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. E_F 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I go to the talk pages of articles, no one ever responds. I just operate over WP:BRD, it’s easier and takes less time. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

i mean you requested “guidance”, everyone else is suggesting indef which is not what i had in mind when you left this here. id gladly take a gensex topic ban over never being able to edit ever again. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm suspecting trolling, here. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ve made a lot of non-gender edits. I’m not here solely to make those kind of edits. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you may be a net positive to the site, but you should be wary that any of your actions can get you blocked regardless. There have been plenty of cases where a user has done so much for Misplaced Pages, but their actions got them indef'ed, usually for WP:CIVIL violations. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 18:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

See my concern, and why I and others are doubting Doopliss' sincerity, is edits like this - the edit summary may claim they're trying to protect women or correct misogyny but the end result is to remove information about the exploitation caused by the games industry - which, of course, has quite a lot of misogyny within it. These sorts of counter-productive edits make Doopliss' actions questionable. A combination of strident edit summaries regarding the dangers of misogyny with edits that make misogyny less visible in articles, that make women working in the games industry literally less visible, seem less like somebody feeling upset over misogyny and more like someone using tropes about feminism to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

so you think I’m just making fun of feminists or something? do you think im pretending to be a woman and I’m actually an incel or some crap? what if I told you I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body? But of course you won’t believe me. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body Be that as it may, leave that attitude at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so leave that fear at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

clearly you’ve never had a phobia, or OCD. It’s not something you just… leave. But I won’t get into detail. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We're sorry for what you have to deal with, but that doesn't excuse disruption. It's unfortunate, but you need to find a way to adapt, or a block may come your way. Tarlby 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

what can I do to make sure I don’t get indeffed? anything? because I want to edit here again in my lifetime Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You've already been told by Liz, so it's up to you now. Either acknowledge and take on the board the advice you have been given, or yes, you will likely be blocked. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledge that your past actions were wrong and disruptive, you promise to never do them again, and from here on contribute constructively. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• TTYDDoopliss, I'll cut to the chase rather than participating in a debate over what your motivation is for some of your editing. I'm a female administrator and you've been brought to ANI. While this is sometimes done for frivolous reasons, for the most part, unless vandalism is occurring, complaints are brought here to resolve in order that harsher sanctions won't be necessary. It's an attempt to address problems before a block becomes necessary. There is a view that your glib messages asserting a POV regarding sexism or editors on this project are inappropriate and borderline unacceptable. Can you cease with the personal commentary here? Because if you can not, there will not be a third chance, my Misplaced Pages experience tells me that a block from editing of some duration will be coming your way. So, the choice is up to you at this point. Act professionally and not like Misplaced Pages is some kind of discussion forum, or have your editing privileges removed.

And to reinforce this in case it needs to be emphasized, this is not about sexism or gender really, it's about NPOV and disruptive editing. You'd be getting a similar message if you were making side comments about politics, ethnicity, race or any other subjects that cross over into contentious subject areas. These are designated areas where sloppy editing and off-the-cuff comments are sanctioned if the editor can't control her/himself. From a nerdy female editor, Liz 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

is there any other way I can make Misplaced Pages a better place for women? How about a policy like WP:CHILDPROTECT but for women? Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at this edit. A perfectly normal picture of a woman was removed with a weird and offensively sexualised edit summary. I can't begin to stress how perfectly normal that picture is. There are two possibilities here. One is that this is anti-feminist trolling under a false flag but the other is that TTYDDoopliss is exactly what she claims to be and was genuinely triggered by a perfectly ordinary picture of a woman at an awards ceremony. If the later then she is clearly in no state to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at this time. Pictures like that turn up all over Misplaced Pages. If we have stronger evidence of deliberate trolling elsewhere then obviously that's an indef (of both the old and new accounts) but if that edit was made in good faith then I think a temporary block would be best for all concerned. It would give TTYDDoopliss an opportunity to come back later if she is well enough, and if she wants to, of course. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There's this which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

because there’s no such thing as “women/men are affected more often” it’s 100% gender bias.male researchers assign depression, anxiety, ocd, and BPD to women because they are seen as neurotic and hysterical. they assign adhd, autism and npd to men because it fits them being nerdy, socially awkward and perverted. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What we would expect is to find WP:MEDRS compliant sources to demonstrate that rather than a person engaging in WP:OR in a way that leads to a statement contradicted by its own reliable citation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And, exacerbating this, you were already engaged here with people raising concerns about your widespread disruptive editing, which had been explained to you, before you made this edit. Which makes it quite deliberated disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. Now I'm looking at this edit and that does seem a lot more like trolling. The edit summary sounds like an anti-feminist parody of a feminist and the actual edit is to remove coverage of an alleged sex offender. Given that sexual misconduct is a serious issue in the video games industry it seems implausible that even the most misguided feminist would try to cover it up. I know that mental illness can express itself in many ways but... I just don't buy it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed it because it made me upset. I KNOW it is a huge problem. I don’t even feel safe being in the public eye of any man. I don’t feel safe having ANY job knowing that im just gonna get assaulted by a man and HR won’t do anything and I will be traumatized for the rest of my life. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed it because it made me upset. What? Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Having intense coverage of SA accusations will only fuel men more to hurt us and use us. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who wanted to NOT get indeffed 10 minutes ago? Whether you have legitimate feelings about this or you are just WP:TROLLING, a block is coming soon if you continue with this behavior. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

fine ill shut up now Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit also looks like parody. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It also led to a bit of revert action with the claim that noting the character's motivation included desire for a girlfriend was "dehumanizing". Hilariously this is about a comic in which the male protagonist is resurrected as a non-gendered non-human. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Women don’t exist to fulfill men’s needs. I’m sorry. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No one said or implied any such thing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Women don't exist to fulfill men's needs. That is very true. However desire for a partner can certainly be part of a character's motivation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit actually takes a WP:MEDRS cited statement and rewrites it to say something that the RS did not say not once but twice. In addition, there is the claim that erasing sexual orientation as a possible subject of obsessive and compulsive ideation is somehow reducing heteronormative bias. Which is somewhat contrary to what I would expect from a sincere feminist editor. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit is somewhat better than average. At least the source says, "Insofar as they affect women, bromances, when taken in conjunction with monogamous heterosexual relationships, decrease the burden on women to provide all the care work for their partners."

However "all the care work" is paraphrased by Doopliss to "The increasing tolerance of bromances relives pressure on women to be emotionally intimate with men," which is... not... the same thing. But at least I can look at the source, look at the statement and draw a line between them, however tenuous. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, this too supports my "troll" hypothesis since the very next paragraph of the Chen source begins "Bromances reinforce gender hierarchy, bolster marriage as the goveming, archetypal intimate relationship, and normalize homophobia." So we have an article crtical of bromance being used to praise it for getting men out of womens' hair. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's clear some form of block is necessary now. Tarlby 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

why? how? why not a topic ban or something? PLEASE don’t kick me out. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Because you have disrupted multiple topics. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And that's it. That's the proof that we are being played. An inexperienced user would not be advocating for a topic ban. An inexperienced user would not even know what a topic ban was. This is probably a Gamergate dead-ender yanking our chains. DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest a checkuser but what's the point? They are going to get blocked anyway. DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I know what a topic ban is because I’ve lurked on pages like AN/I before. I’ve been browsing back-end Misplaced Pages pages for years. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And I don’t even know what a “dead-ender” is. You guys think im an incel in disguise when i hate incels with a burning passion. But of course, you guys don’t believe me. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. We don't believe you AT ALL. Why, you ask? This whole ANI thread. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

what can I do to make you guys believe me? Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That ship has sailed. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Indefinite block

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

• Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Even if they are what they claim to be there is nothing for them here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. In addition, WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support For the reasons and multitudinous diffs cited above I believe this whole dog and pony show is a troll. WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. I don't mean to be rude, but Wikipedians are a diverse bunch, and some of us are bound to be male. If you can't work collaboratively, you can't work at all. E_F 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support because as I said before, whether this user has legitimate intentions behind these edits or is just WP:TROLLING, their disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge their actions shows me that they are WP:NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom Tarlby 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per Nom. The way she characterizes certain mental illnesses is untrue and frankly beyond offensive. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I believe we're being trolled. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nomination - I had initial sympathy but it's just trolling. qcne (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Good block by CT. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support: TTYDDoopliss asked, several times over, what she could do to avoid a general block. Over and over again, she refused to respond in the one way that would have helped her: by saying that she'd clean up her act and stop dumping her own issues onto this site. Even if we weren't being trolled, any time an IDHT person gets cbanned, an angel gets its wings. Ravenswing 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

diff

diff

diff

diff

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

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

More specifically this line:

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

diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page.

What Warrenmck does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up all the time. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach.

For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was Czello. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages.

I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a minor faction, per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that

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

and you responded

Which is labeling the party as it.

Which isn't how NPOV editing works.

Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus.

I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes

Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point here. Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. I did not make the change I knew would be controversial, that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal (diff) Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events.

This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though.

What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Literally in this ANI:

Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"

That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page:

Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You are making a distinction without a difference. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. Springee (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Toa_Nidhiki05 appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks WP:OWN:

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

  The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a hell of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards.

  Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (diff, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has WP:WIKILAWYERed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As Cortador said, "Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?" Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place after I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer WP:CPUSH problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an WP:OWN mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Springee appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. diff diff diff and diff. I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff:

  The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late

  Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @The Four Deuces appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up all over[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. Springee (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find years worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments.

  If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling diff diff Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. Cortador (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. Nemov (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully WP:CPUSH and WP:SEALION are behavioural problems. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse (diff).

while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree at all makes this pretty WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for Republican Party (United States). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Toa was TBANed for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was

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

This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to WP:AE more than WP:AN/I. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. Springee (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.

And very clearly retaliatory. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually.

You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Misplaced Pages citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings

Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the exact types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with Springee about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for the exact same behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As a perfect example, in this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist. This is because it says that the party isn't just a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist George Wallace and the fascist propagandist Father Coughlin. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop". Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok here's the correct quote now: The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.
This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.
While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear.

Now this article does compare the Democratic party as a whole to Trump on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it. The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, the New York Times introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data." Editorial and opinion commentary says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source.

It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used.

My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what WP:RSEDITORIAL says When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.

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

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

Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions.

If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources.

On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. TFD (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

See Some types of sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist?

If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. TFD (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning?

But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN: There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out.

You’ve been doing this for years and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been very explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @JPxG’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a WP:CPUSH. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, just in case anyone wants to review it. Liz 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @JPxG engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating

You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings

In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification diff diff with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing diff diff.

A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• As I expected, @Warrenmck: - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them.
• First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the Stacey Abrams page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of this report.
• Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you still cannot define what POV I am pushing - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning is. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is yours, because it's been utterly ridiculous.
• You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. I think everything I said is correct. Your proposal was bad. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly.
• Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me here of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to agree with me.
• Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over.
• I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting my time, you are wasting your time, and you're wasting everyone's time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. Cortador (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are several new peer reviewed sources that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of multiple other editors and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:POV. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example:

  Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.

  Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the context in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a diff.

  1. You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to.

  2. Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for years, once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not

  3. In the absence of any substantive objection, WP:RS material should be added in.

  WP:ONUS doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and WP:IDONTLIKEIT then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• If you're going to accuse @Springee: of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here.
• Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a local consensus exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you.
• With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @Springee, who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. Springee (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Warrenmck, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I can back away Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Given them a final warning on the matter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

@The Bushranger after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: "On the day of the performance, there was a large audience, most of whom were Armenians". It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again.

This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were alerted is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't competent enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Caribbean Hindustani

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

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

Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. Tarlby 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This: , may or may not be helpful. I'd also add that I can't force someone to discuss something on the talkpage: Hermes Express (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That would make sense if you'd tried discussing on the talk page, but you didn't head there until Tarbly asked you to. You can't force someone to discuss something but you can try discussing which you haven't done until now. Expecting the other party to start a discussion is rarely good editor behaviour especially when you are edit warring. Instead it's like a lame kids 'they started it' defence. The only way you can prove an editor refuses to discuss on the talk page is by trying otherwise you can both be counted as refusing to discuss. To be clear except the first sentence, this applies to both of you. Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written.

He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information.

I had talk with the user and explained several times in the edit and on talk page as well. I have explained everything which I added with source unlike him. Adrikshit (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Potential block evasion by IP 211.184.93.253 (old IP 58.235.154.8)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Out of the five edits made by this IP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geolocate 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danny5784

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

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

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

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

Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.

Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than high school so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. Toyota683 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear  Confirmed result.-- Ponyo 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem, ever, with unarchiving, The Bushranger. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. Liz 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Clerical note that this user is not the similarly named DannyS712. jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article

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

Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism and is not funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a very low tolerance for trolls, especially in contentious topics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also worth noting that there are jokes, and then there are "oh hell no" situations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you really have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see WP:HTVC. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't you have just used inspect element? Doombruddah (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You're taking a very long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. Doombruddah (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back» and there are no consequences? XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their rope. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. Departure– (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. Springee (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly reverting edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Sokoreq,

First WP:ANEW is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. Liz 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. Liz 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry@Liz actually before this, i went on your talk page to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided edit warnings. Sokoreq (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's your action, not theirs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They are the one who started removing/reverting edits repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on talk page to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are doing again. Plese see SIF edit history. Sokoreq (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". WP:3RR is a bright line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. Liz 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They edit in group, while i started a discussion first but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on talk page but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. Sokoreq (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the associated talk page for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? Sokoreq (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Science_of_Identity_Foundation is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG sanction is appropriate here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure they understand? Moxy🍁 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie Yeh, I went to the COI noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my talk page. What do you want to prove through this? Sokoreq (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with User:Hipal from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at WP:ANEW. Liz 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. Liz 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I read over Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Science of Identity Foundation discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. Liz 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on WP:ANEW. Thanks again Sokoreq (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know what you're up to, but from the beginning, I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks Sokoreq (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hipal, can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? Liz 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if they are using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, their own behavior. --Hipal (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Trolling at Talk:Denali

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

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

---

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

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

WP:AIV? Tarlby 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected now, thanks User:Isabelle Belato Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. Isabelle Belato 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Isabelle Belato and Acroterion: Needs talk page access yanked too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Isabelle Belato 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn

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

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

---

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

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

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

It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- Ponyo 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I've restored it to the pre-socking version and Daniel Case has semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Banned Blocked IP

Banned Blocked IP Sock

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

EDIT: The IP is now banned blocked, with the original IP's ban block extended by another three months. Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKNOTBAN - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction on my wording. Redacted II (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks

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

Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. Beeblebrox 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: 'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA). Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Per our own internal classification (e.g. WP:GGTF/WP:GENSEX) it is formally a "contentious topic", and the article feminism is in the {{political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. jp×g🗯️ 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:

• "The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
• "Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
• "When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."

I am not really sure why these sentences would, prima facie, constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:

... that the retelling of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the feminist perspective?

From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.

I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (Special:Permalink/1271035842#User:TTYDDoopliss_and_gender-related_edits), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. jp×g🗯️ 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Amended, thanks. jp×g🗯️ 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what Cambridge's definition says:

to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:

I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.

Dictionary.com says:

Follow successfully, locate, as in I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.”

Collins says:

If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.

She had spent years trying to track down her parents.

I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.

The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.

There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.

Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. jp×g🗯️ 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page and And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page. Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says "Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there." on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment. This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: commute block to topic ban

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

• Support as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Lengthen the block if you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to Retelling (1, 2. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:

  • : unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
  • Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in Murder of George Floyd.
  • : Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
  • User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020#Do you even READ my comments anymore, or do you just click "revert" out of habit? shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
    • Similarly on other talk pages Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?
  • Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive 3#Softening of exceedingly authoritative language and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
  • Tried to make the article Millennium Challenge 2002 more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all. 1.

  Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @JPxG's concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least WP:GENSEX broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Reinstate indef

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

• Support as proposer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose reinstating indef, support gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Voorts and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by GreenLipstickLesbian. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous8206

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

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

---

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

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

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

WP:BLP policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: Special:PermanentLink/1268615581#Liddle Hart. I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to Talk:Donald Trump in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

As the title suggests, this includes:

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

Making personal attacks such as "Enough of explaining r@cist Brits what to do", "you're probably an ignorant British man", and has tried to remove relevant content about 4 times now.

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

Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See WP:COMMUNICATE.

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

Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't currently editing it appears. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a WP:FORUM attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. Borgenland (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. Capitals00 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

I blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) E_F 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Incivility and edit-warring

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

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

---

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

Users involved:

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

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

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

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

Dates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to WP:LTA-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. MolecularPilot 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It does seem like this could have gone to WP:ANEW. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from User:Thelittlefaerie. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. Liz 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thelittlefaerie speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this.

I think if you can apologise and agree to not make personal attacks against other editors again, and refrain from edit warring (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek dispute resolution.

Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! MolecularPilot 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M.

Thank you,

Thelittlefaerie Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Update: Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) MolecularPilot 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Swagsgod

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

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

---

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

Looking into it. jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:

• Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God
• Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests

etc. jp×g🗯️ 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by @Fram:). Let me know if I have missed anything. jp×g🗯️ 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Gone. —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? Meters (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source

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

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

142.190.62.131

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

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

IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles

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

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

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

• Could I please get some help here? IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using 2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is  Confirmed block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been blocked twice previously for disruption.-- Ponyo 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much, User:Ponyo. And this IP as well? Paul Erik 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Paul Erik, I got that /64 as well.-- Ponyo 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Abusive user

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

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

---

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

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

This is a matter for the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. Departure– (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shaggydan. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for this edit of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shaggydan: - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as this will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at this edit, I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. TiggerJay (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shaggydan: Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? Shaggydan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with actual personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.

I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many characters are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.

Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.

He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.

I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."

Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."

29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.

On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"

These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.

I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. Shaggydan (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP

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

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards