Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:35, 14 October 2007 view sourceMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 25 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive309.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:54, 10 January 2025 view source Axad12 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,830 edits →Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 309
|algo = old(24h) |counter = 1175
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
}}
]
{{stack end}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!--
__TOC__
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
== Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from ] ==
<!-- Vandalism reports should go to ], not here. -->
], a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
:You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --] (]) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics ( and ), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is , again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
::Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --] (]) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally and , despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, . I asked him to , but .
::::I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already , the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please.] ] 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. ] ] 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And here's explicit transphobia. It's her '''daughter''', no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Potential problem conerning episode articles ==
*:*'''Comment''' I would suggest Darwin review ]. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. ] (]) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:@] I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? ] ] 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::@], the bottom line is that ''you don't get to question that.'' As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is '''not''' the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them ''any'' good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. ] (]) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. ] ] 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this ] (]) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read ]' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. ] (]) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. ] ] 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including ]) - otherwise you will be blocked. ]] 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. ] ] 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
*:*::::::Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
*:*::::::And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the ] area.] (]) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::I would suggest a '''topic ban''' is imposed. ]] 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::I would '''support''' a topic ban from ]. ] (]) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. ] (]) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. ]] 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? ] ] 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::::Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. ]] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::::You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. ] ] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::@] nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. ] ] 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. ] (]) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. ] ] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::::You fundementally misunderstand the scope of ] and the concept of topic area as well. ] (]) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::::Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. ] ] 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::::::I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. ] (]) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::::::it was a collective you. ] ] 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::::::::The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. ] (]) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. ] (]) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::None of this is relevant. We follow sources and ]. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. ]] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've continued to post where? ] ] 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? ] ] 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? ]] 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have ], and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -] (]) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. ] ] 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -] (]) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? ] ] 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] This one. -] (]) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. ] ] 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@] Easiest way to defuse this is to post a '''bolded''' and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -] (]) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" ] ] 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. ]] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? ] (]) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. ] ] 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? ] (]) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. ] ] 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? ] (]) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 ] ] 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. ] (]) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. ] ] 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around ] (]) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::@] no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? ] ] 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Because of edits like this . ] (]) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? ] ] 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? ] (]) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? ] ] 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. ] (]) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::I ''answered'' a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. ] ] 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. ] (]) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. ] ] 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. ] (]) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. ] (]) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not certain if this is our expected behaviour or not however I am bringing this to admin attention anyways:


:Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.] ] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
User seems to be mass merge tagging articles and later redirectifying them. That seems to be the case for the past 5000 edits at least. Is this acceptable behaviour? Are episode articles banned?
:I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it.]] 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. ] ] 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary ], broadly construed, as in effect.]] 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] yes, that's correct. ] ] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about ] in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? ] ] 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages to punish me ''in the English Misplaced Pages?'' ] ] 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@] Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? ] ] 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


Would recommend that Darwin ''walk away'' from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. ] (]) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


;Clarification
:Individual episode articles aren't banned, but they still have to meet ] just like every other article. That is, they don't get a free pass on notability just because their parent show is, if you get my drift. There are currently vast numbers of individual episode articles which could never meet ] and thus should be merged into their parent "season" article instead of on their own. <br>] lays out the procedure pretty well. <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye</span><small><sup><i>]</i></sup></small> 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
*Hello @] - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in ], to the point of eventually here. Obviously Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
:::They are not merged. They are blanked/redirectified. ] doesn't require mass merging. And I see no centralized discussion for such a thing anywhere. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
*As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ], which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
:::Actually, it kind of does...there's a logical progression here that has to be met. Series, then season, then individual episode. Each one must meet ]. A lot of people assume that since multiple independent sources can be found for the series and the season, that means every individual episode deserves it's own page. This is, obviously, not the case. Merging (mass or otherwise) is the appropriate policy-approved way of dealing with a non-notable episode from a notable season (or notable series). <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye</span><small><sup><i>]</i></sup></small> 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
*The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
::::I see no "policy"-approved procedure for this. Guidelines are there to help us write better articles. They are not licenses for deletion without discussion. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
*Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on ] and ] or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Misplaced Pages. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
::I'm using merge tags, and waiting for discussion, so yes, it's fine. This has been up here many, many times for when I was being ] in redirecting, so it has come down to that. To answer your question, by ], most episodes have no chance of ever needing to exist. We have somewhere over five thousand episode articles (possibly way more) that need to be taken care of, so that is what I am doing. ] 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
*And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. ] ] 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Your idea of taking care of is removal of over "five thousand" articles without undergoing any deletion procedure. Such AFDs will most likely fail if my experience is any indication. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Perhaps you could try something constructive like coming up with a reason that these articles are notable? Otherwise, TNN is just engaging in cleanup. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I am uncertain what to say here. What is the metric for notability for episode articles? If all episode articles are to be deleted, I want to see a general discussion for it. Or else someone, if not me, will mass revert the mass merging. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Under ], he can redirect as he pleases. If people push back, he needs to discuss. There is no special notability for episodes- just the standard form. He should, if people revert, discuss individual groups of articles on the List of Episode page. &mdash; ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::: i disagree. TTN is editing way too fast on tagging and redirecting the episode articles. Being bold is one thing but redirecting an episode without checking if it has sustained its notability is another... TTN, please stop and gain consensus before redirecting any more articles. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


===Proposed Community Sanctions===
:::::::There is no way I or anyone can discuss at the rate of his tagging. I would think any show with the cultural impact as 24 to be notable. I do not know what ''reason'' is needed to establish notability... Why is Shakespeare's Hamlet notable? Why is any book or movie notable? The idea that a show itself is notable yet none of its episodes are worth a mention simply baffles me. If something is not notable, why is not AFD used? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.
::::::::Also, the pages are not being merged. "Merge" implies that all or at least some of the content is being moved into the target article; this is not the case, they are just being redirected. For such a large list of articles, there should be some sort of centralized discussion, possibly one discussion per series as to: should they all be merged (some episodes may have notability for specific reasons that others in the same series do not), what content should be merged, etc. I think this is taking ] a little too far and bordering on ]. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:I would agree that this behavior is quite disruptive. Particularly disturbing is the fact that ] is being used to make controversial edits. ] 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::'''Re:Notability.''' There ''has'' been centralised discussion about the notability of episodes: ] arose out of one such discussion a couple of years ago, and has recently been rediscussed (see ]). The guidelines for establishing notability of fiction articles is undergoing discussion at ], and the actual necessity for separate guidelines for fiction is being discussed at ]. As to centralised discussion about the appropriate action to undertake regarding articles which fail the above notability guidelines, then this can be found at the talk pages of ] and ], ]. If anyone has a concern about any issues about episode articles, regarding notability through to the processes surrounding such articles, then it's probably worth checking out any of those pages and contributing to constructive debate there. ] 01:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::] does not say that this is what to do. It says how to determine '''if''' episodes should get articles. This is just mass redirection of episode articles with little or no review. ] does not say whether or not each of the episode articles redirected was notable or not, nor does it say that episodes should not get articles. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::Having just randomly reviewed ten of the most recent thousand edits made by {{User|TTN}}, all the episode articles I saw generally had zero references and no real world context. Likewise they were chock full of things that ] says to avoid, including trivia sections, quotations, in-universe writing, and extremely detailed plot summary sections. Again, this was only a 1% spot-check, but I did not see any issues with ''TTN`s'' clean up work. --] (]) 01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I fail to see why redirecting articles without checking the notability is considered "clean-up work". ] is a guideline on creating new articles, it is by no means a guideline set for deleting articles. ] clearly states that discussion must be present, and that suitable consensus must emerge for the redirection of articles. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Perhaps I missed something, so please bear with me. Lets take ], one of the articles in question that I reviewed during my spot-check of ''TTN`s'' clean-up work. On August 25th, ''TTN'' added a {{tl|mergeto}} tag on the article that included a discussion link to ]. After 34 days, consensus was determined and two days later (36 days after the article was tagged) the episode was merged into the episode list. Reviewing the of the article shows it to be a textbook example of what ] says to avoid: quotes, featured music, zero citations, no real world context, and a decorative fair-use image. Looks like a pretty clear cut case of cleanup to me. --] (]) 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::He also redirected all the episodes in ], and multiple reviews can be found for every episode. This was discussed and ignored on the ]. Lots of shows episodes, especially older ones don't have second party information, but some do, and it doesn't seem to effect his redirecting them. - ] 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Some of these articles were really bad before he redirected them. That said, regarding the discussion linked to above he closed the debate himself and claimed consensus despite two people disagreeing with him and only Ned Scott agreeing with him. That's not consensus to merge/redirect. As for articles containing trivia the correct approach is to merge that into the rest of the article and then delete the trivia section, not simply to merge/redirect. ]<sup>'']''</sup> 04:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Reviews for episodes does not mean you will have real-world information to place in said articles. As for the reviews themselves, they were somewhat questionable, being from http://tvsquad.com and http://buddytv.com . A consensus does not just include the discussion on the immediate talk page, but also what the community at large had decided about excessive plot summary (]). -- ] 07:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::True but then what is the purpose of starting a debate if the outcome is predetermined per consensus on ]? I'm neither jumping on his back nor am I disputing that most of these articles were bad. What I'm disputing is the way he did this. If he was going to be truly bold he could have redirected without wasting other editor's time with futile debates the outcome of which he was just going to ignore anyway. What is the purpose of tagging so many articles using AWB when the debates were futile and the obvious outcome was to redirect rather than merge? ]<sup>'']''</sup> 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
When you have a group of artilces, of which say 10%, 20% or 50% can have their notability established, do we have any guidelines on how they should be dealt with. Is summary redirection based on BOLDness the correct way to deal with this? - ] 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
: If you ''can'' establish notability for those articles — and you would like to see them survive — ''you should do it''; absent that, they are good candidates for rediretion. --] 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
And before more people jump on TTN's back, I'd like to point out that he has yielded to past requests, taking more time with these issues, giving fair notice, and starting discussion about these redirections before they happen. -- ] 07:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
*Has anyone asked the relevant TV-related wikiprojects what their opinion is on this issue? ] 11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
**That would be ], a Task Force in WikiProject Television. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ignore me if someone else has said this, but TTN ''is not deleting anything'', since the episode articles remain in the revision history. I don't believe s/he's an administrator, so s/he isn't actually capable of deleting anything. Merging is a completely acceptable action for anyone to perform on any article they feel it's appropriate, and is in fact suggested as an alternative for deletion (] and ]). There is nothing about TV episode articles that makes this any different, and there is no special guideline regarding editing episode articles. ] is only concerned with notability, so beyond that they are subject to all the normal editing rules, including the deletion policy. So this discussion (which should take place somewhere else, since it requires no admin intervention) should take into account the fact that there is no reason episode articles are special or otherwise exempt from the normal rules and practices. ] 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
===edit point===
Let me reword my original argument since there seems to be a confusion. When an article is low on quality, you improve them. I do not mind several article improvement drives on episode articles. We do not have a deadline so in the course of several years this can lead to multiple good articles. If an article does not immediately have adequate sources, the recommended action as per community approved procedure is ]. In this case that was not attempted. In fact the last three steps were avoided all together. Process is important. There are many low quality articles on wikipedia. Each suffering from valorous problems. Unless an article suffers from an urgent problem such as ] it is almost never blanked. Blanking is a last resort not the first.


'''Proposed''' DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to ] broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Usage of {{tl|merge}} is entirely improper as nothing is ever merged as a result. I also observe that all these mass merging is preformed by a specific group of editors that impose their consensus to the "local" people working on the articles. An imposed consensus is no consensus by very nature. Some of these users have no other contribution.


*'''Support''' -] (]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The ] guideline was drafted to help guide editors to better write articles and was a decent resource if used for this purpose (I am not madly in love with it mind you). While the guideline was never community approved (no community wide discussion), I think it was adequately worded on the version. Between article underwent a major rewrite, based on what I do not know. It was originally a MOS guideline (and should have stayed that way) and now is been turned into a notability guideline . I am uncertain if there was an extensive discussion by the community as a whole for this abrupt and extensive change. I see no evidence of it. Guidelines and policies are not written by an elite group of people but are derived out of a consensus from the entire Misplaced Pages community as a whole.
*:I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -] (]) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. ''PS'' - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. ] (]) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban and IBAN''', both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. ]] 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Just read through the above and ''good grief''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. ] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


:Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. ] (]) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::That's actually a fair point. -] (]) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent ] impulse. ] (]) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] You have been misjudging me - It was , actually, if it's worth anything. ] ] 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the ] area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. ] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). ] ] 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::If they weren't before they are now... ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ok, to be clear, I '''oppose''' a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. ] (]) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it ] (]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. ] ] 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. ] (]) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] And those were the only ones, and I immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to . You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. ] ] 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance ] (]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@] I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? ] ] 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::This edit might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::@] I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽‍♂️ ] ] 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::@] Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? ] ] 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. ] (]) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::@] There was not any "lie", please stop ]. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". ] ] 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. ] (]) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Darwin has a long history of editing in ] albeit generally less controversially. . ] (]) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::@] That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. ] ] 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::DarwIn ] covers gender ''and'' sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. ] (]) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::@] Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. ] ] 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Bushranger. ] ] 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. ] (]) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. ] ] 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Pppery}} days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. ] (]) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. ] (]) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? ] ] 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{replyto|DarwIn}} Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times ], ], ], ], ], ]. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. ] (]) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like ]. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here.] ] 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. ] (]) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. ] ] 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::], I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup>
*:::::::{{Ping|Liz}} Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that.] ] 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{reply|DarwIn}} you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. ] (]) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. ] (]) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Support''' - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
:]] 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' - Per GoodDay and Springee. ] (]) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.] (]) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of ] may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer ]. ] (]) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


* <s>'''Support''' TBAN/IBAN</s> '''Weak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN''' - ] suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte", the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate ] behavior. ] (]) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:When an article is low on quality, you improve it. When there are hundreds or thousands of articles on very similar subjects (like TV episodes), all with the same problems, all for a long time, you merge them. Nothing is lost, and we get a lot closer to following our content policies (], ]) and guidelines. I have redirected episode articles the day they were created, without discussion, as people felt the need to create articles for episodes that wouldn't be aired for two months.... The problem here is not that these stub articles should get more time, but that less of these should be created in the first place. When someone is willing and able to make a better article, with out-of-universe content and reliable independent sources, then the merge can be very easily undone. Until then, these articles are only bad examples for new editors. ] 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.] (]) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::From where are you getting the idea that merging is never appropriate? I note that the very page you linked suggests "if appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." The notability policy, which has been derived out of consensus by the community as a whole, is the policy by which these articles are being merged. I would also like to underscore Fram's point by noting that the sky is not falling and all of these articles can be retrieved by anyone, since they are not being deleted. ] 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. ] (]) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::See, I think what we have here is a breakdown of communication all around. In my mind, at least, the problem isn't necessarily that these articles shouldn't be merged; it's that what TTN is doing is '''not''' merging them. Merging implies that information from the article being eliminated is incorporated into the article it's being merged into. TTN's standard practice seems to be to simply redirect articles en masse without any effort to incorporate the information into the article he redirects to. I've noted a similar modus operandi by other people who have been redirecting many articles while citing ] as a reason, and think that there may be a need to clarify this point, since we end up with people angrily editing and creating lots of AN/I and AIV reports as a result. ] 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--] (]) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I think that's the point exactly: '''it's only a merge when you actually retain some of the content in the article.''' Many of TTN's edits have not even vaguely been in line with that statement, and even then regardless of the merits of the actions themselves his (her?) handling of the situation has been "counter-harmonious" to say the least. I understand exactly where White Cat is coming from on this. -- ] ('''<sub><font color="blue">]</font></sub> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>''') 11:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. ] (]) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And when there's nothing worth merging, we redirect. So? ] 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::"A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. ]] 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: TTN has merged over 5000 articles such that none of the content from the individual article was retained in the merged article. Statistically and logically it is '''impossible''' that none of those articles had content worth retaining. -- ] ('''<sub><font color="blue">]</font></sub> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>''') 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. ] (]) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::A large number of these articles contained identical or near identical summaries from the ''List of episodes'' article. Also, summary is easy to generate, and we have no shortage of editors willing to do it. -- ] 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. ]] 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::So what's your argument here? It's okay to completely blank an article because eventually someone else will perform the rest of the merge for you? That's wildly irresponsible, and a crap argument to boot. If TTN is so hard-pressed to merge that many articles then he needs to put in the time to do it properly. Right now he's just wiping out whole swaths of information and dragging the overall quality of Misplaced Pages down, regardless of how "easy" it is to find the original article content in the edit history. -- ] ('''<sub><font color="blue">]</font></sub> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>''') 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::OK boomer. ] (]) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. ]] 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.] (]) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP ] - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. ] (]) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. ] (]) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ec}} NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of ], and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -] (]) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
:::sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. ] (]) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. ] (]) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour ''there would be no mention of WP:NPA''. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture ''continues'' to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. ] (]) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' as unnecessary given the commitments already given. ]] 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|1=Let's not. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). <small>Edited to include edit conflict comment. ] (]) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
::::I am assuming you haven't spent much time in places ] where religious belief and persons of faith are not infrequently and quite openly subject to ridicule. Racism is a subject upon which society has happily come to more or less full agreement. Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other. I shall refrain from further comment out of deference to WP:FORUM. -] (]) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Fringe ideas get ridiculed at FTN regardless of whether or not they are religious... That so many fringe views are also religious is more a result of the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual being inherently fringe than any problem with FTN. Religion which is rational and explainable isn't religion any more after all. ] (]) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for affirming my point. -] (]) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Your point was that "Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other." Right? Like for example the ] or is that not the side you were thinking of? ] (]) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No. I was thinking of people who regularly insult and ridicule religious belief and those who hold to it. Something which based on your comment, does not seem to be a source of concern to you. That said, this discussion is veering deep into WP:FORUM territory and I am going to move on. Have a good day. -] (]) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think I've ever seen any of those people suggest that trans people are demons, or did you mean demonize in a way other than literally saying that the other side is demonic/satan's minions? Becuase that would be highly ironic... ] (]) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I am reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that you are attempting to be deliberately offensive. And for the record, you are succeeding. Good day. -] (]) 22:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You weren't aware that a cornerstone of the gender controversy was religious conservatives resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other? Because that is well documented in reliable sources. I don't think you're the one who is supposed to be offended here, you're the one saying what appear to be extremely offensive things and are being asked to clarify what you meant. ] (]) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ec}} I think a significant point here is that while we may tolerate some degree of forumish and offensive comment about gender or race or religions from editors when they are restricted to largely abstract comment or even when they reference other editors, it's far more of a problem when the editors make offensive accusations about living persons especially when these are completely unrelated to any discussion about how to cover something (noting that the editor continued to make the comment even after they had noted how the English wikipedia treats issues). So for example, if someone says a specific religious figure is delusion or lying in relation to how we treat their testimony that might barely be acceptable. When someone just comes out and says it repeatedly for no reason, that's far more of a problem. Especially if the figure is someone barely notable and not notable (as was the case here for one of the individuals each). ] (]) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
{{hat|1=This ''is'' affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*'''Comment''' This is definitely not the ideal place to discuss the subject since the whole problem originated with pt.wiki, but since the editor came here asking for help (for the right reasons or not), I will draw attention to the case of the admin accused of transphobia. This is not the first time that DarwIn has been singled out due to his comments on the subject (he has already given several examples of this here), but there is an where the editor has already been criticized for making such comments. There, they were also celebrating Skyshifter's ban (DarwIn commented something like "as a man he was 100%, after transitioning he became unbearable" to refer to her). As much as they try not to link the group to the project, to use this chat you need to associate your Misplaced Pages credentials, so I am concerned that pt.wiki admins could be seen spreading speeches against minorities in an official space of the project, since Misplaced Pages is the target of attacks for investing in equity and diversity. In addition to this comment, the admin was also extremely rude and crude towards a ].


:Again, this is not the ideal place to comment on these issues, but I suggest that the case be submitted to Wikimedia if any intervention or something more incisive is necessary. The local community can accuse me of anything for writing these words, but I am concerned about the escalation of editorial harassment within that space.
:I notice TTN has been noticeably absent from this discussion, yet he continues to redirect articles. I've asked him to comment here. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::] has said on his talk page that he will not comment here. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


:PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. ] (]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::There's not much more to say, he's not doing anything wrong. -- ] 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors (] in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Mass removing article content is a problem. Some of these allegedly merged articles contained enough information that disqualifies them from being stubs. So they are "full articles" and not stubs. Altering a guideline and converting it from a "MOS guideline" to a "notability guideline" without adequate discussion is a problem. TTN isn't even willing to discuss the matter which is also a problem. There most certainly is a problem. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:::And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe ]. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::TTN is even over his "bold" action despite the lack of . In case a discussion was overwhelmingly a merge or let alone a redirectification. was redirectified anyways despite having enough content to disqualify even as stubs. Granted these articles are not featured they aren't stubs either. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::::As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. ] (]) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. ] (]) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its ] to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. ] (]) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


'''As a ptwiki user''' that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage ()/], thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the ] <small>(in portuguese)</small>. The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it.
:::His priorities--his choice of which articles to modify first--seem very shady for someone not doing anything wrong. In trying to determine what the actual, practiced standard for episode notability is, I looked over the television shows which have featured articles (as I take it those are supposed to set the example for other articles in the category). While I did not look at all of the shows, I looked at enough to realize that virtually ] on wikipedia has a full complement of individual episode articles that contradict ]'s interpretation of the guidelines for notability, but from skimming his extensive edit history, he doesn't seem to have even attempted to apply his modifications to shows with featured articles--other than his very recent (10/4/07) attempts to apply those modifications to ], with its famously small audience--although he has applied many thousands of them to articles with lower traffic.


This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone.
:::Although I can see how his interpretation may be valid, it contradicts the example set by most or all featured articles in this category, and I am inclined to respect their combined example over his individual objections. If his interpretation is widely acceptable by wiki standards, then it would be more honest for him to apply it to the featured articles first, and have it demonstrated as part of the standard for featured television articles. While I understand his stated objection that he can only modify so many articles at once, it looks like bad faith editing when he attempts to change the de facto standards for the entire category of wikipedia television episodes by altering all of the articles with low readership first, and intentionally flying under the radar of the featured articles with high traffic.


I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my ] (). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::He has also stated explicity that he will to prove a point, something ]. Apparently it's an official wiki policy that ], contrary to TTN's own guidelines for modifying or deleting these articles. The more I look at his history, the closer it seems to systemic vandalism and selective modification of articles where he believes he can get away with it (as shown by his "testing the waters" with silly messages to see if anyone will revert them), rather than trying to apply criteria uniformly across the entire category of articles. Wiki describes bad faith editing as "deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism", and TTN's modifications seem to be edging very close to this precise description, although I have the impression that he believes these practices are constructive when he's doing them. --] 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Indeed there certainly is a problem. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community . And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::TTN has in a discussion regarding ] that he doesn't see much chance of being able to pull off his redirection-without-merging and "discussion is unnecessary, consensus is unnecessary" tricks on high-traffic topics. He specifically says that he plans to mostly stick with "picking off smaller ones," because he feels that "once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones." The way I read it, it appears to me that he's trying to establish a precedent of eliminating episode and character articles by working "under the radar" on lower-traffic topics before attempting to do anything to the ones that would attract a lot of attention. Looking through his talkpage archives, I also see dozens of comments and complaints per month about his method of indiscriminately mass-redirecting episode and character articles to lists without any discussion or even an explanation in the edit summary, including ones from before ] went into effect. I don't know how often he's gotten warning templates put up as a result, because he has a habit of deleting them, and digging through the history to find them is enough of an annoyance that I didn't try it today. ] 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm missing something... how exactly does TTN have special authority to decide how the standards will be applied, and enforce his decision over any and all objections? I understand that he thinks his application of the notability guidelines is valid, but it is obviously not accepted practice. He demonstrates his awareness of this by avoiding the most popular shows, for instance generously decreeing that '''all''' the Simpsons articles can stay, because . I don't know how the notability of several articles in a category gives automatic notability to the others, but if anyone can see the hidden sense in that, I'd like to hear it. It sounds more like an excuse to avoid articles where he knows he won't be able to unilaterally enforce his own vision of what wiki should be. If he doesn't need consensus to enforce whatever interpretation he pleases, then does anyone else need consensus to revert his changes wholesale (much as he applies them wholesale to begin with)? And at what point can it be blocked as vandalism, since apparently he is engaging in revert wars in the process? --] 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC) {{spa|F.dolarhyde}}
:As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Misplaced Pages" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Misplaced Pages, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. ] (]) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::After having looked further into the issue, there are several things I want to underline. I can see how TTN feels his interpretation is backed up by the guidelines, but it would be much less offensive, less destructive (fewer people would spend days and weeks typing up information that will only be discarded), and less devious, if: 1) TTN weren't taking it on as his sole responsibility and mission to bulldoze through thousands of lower-traffic articles, but was backed up by other notable contributors sharing this duty; and especially 2) it were applied to the highest profile articles FIRST, not after he's wiped out the pages for hundreds of less-popular series.
{{hab}}
:::::If I'm a new user, unfamiliar with TTN, and I want to create a set of articles for a new series; I'm going to read the guidelines, and then look at the featured, high-profile shows to see an example and confirmation of how to construct accepted articles for a television series. If I see that they avoid creating articles for most individual episodes, I'll think twice before doing that for a new show. But what I actually see '''now''', is that they nearly ALL have articles for each individual episode, and that nobody is putting "merge for lack of notability" warnings on most of them. As a new user I'm not likely to go look up one of the several hundred obscure anime series that TTN has seen fit to reshape to his idea of the notability standards; I'll look at the highest-profile series for examples. I may then spend weeks typing up information for individual episodes, thinking that it's in line with the approved, featured, high-traffic show articles, and then have him come along with his back-door bulldozer and wipe most of it out.
:] - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? ]&nbsp;] 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This practice creates an unwelcoming (if not outright hostile) environment for new contributors, and without good cause. His talk page shows many dozens, possibly even hundreds, of users he's discouraged by his way of going about this--several who have entirely abandoned wikipedia as a consequence. If he's as sure of his version of the notability guidelines as he claims to be, and does not intend to harm the site in the process, then the high profile articles--which serve as role models for new articles--need to be retrofit first, before the countless deletions he's applying to lesser-known articles.
::I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. ] (]) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This would serve both as a good test of whether his reading of the guidelines is a sustainable practice, and serve to spare new contributors: from working hard at finding, creating and contributing content in good faith that will mostly be swept away by his interpretation of the guidelines. The only argument in favor of his doing the low-traffic shows first is that it's easier for him to get away with unpopular changes, even at the cost of substantially damaging the "good faith" of this subset of the wiki userbase. Rather than show any compromise or respect for the community that has created all of these pages, his talk pages show something close to an eagerness to spite most of those creators en masse. It may be a rewarding power trip for him to single-handedly reshape the face of WikiProject Television from underneath; it would be much less destructive for the contributors (and would generate much less destructive ill-will and mistrust in the community) if he joined with notable contributors who share his views on fiction guidelines, and together they approached these changes head-on, starting with the highest traffic articles, where everyone can be aware of the changes from the top down. --] 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) {{spa|F.dolarhyde}}
::@] The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, . Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. ] (]) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
] is an official policy. ] is a derived guideline backed up by consensus. User:TTN enforces both. If he took all episdes that do not assert notability to AfD, fans would scream bloody murder for not following ] ("Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted"), and those AfDs usually end in ''no consensus'' or ''keep'' anyway because there are enough fans to outvote the PLOT policy. Tagging all nn episodes results in complaints about his behaviour at ANI. Going for the "small" shows first to evade major fan outcries (that would again outvote the policy) results in accuses of POINTy and biased behavior. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I'd say. Fans who really care about their TV shows should spend their time in establishing notability and create real world content, maybe write a ], but not create excessive plot summaries. The redirects allow fan-editors to recreate articles with their notability asserted ''in the case'' they can. If I had more time and weren't that thin-skinned, I'd support the enforcement of ] much more than I already do. &ndash; ] <sup>]•c</sup> 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. ] (]) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:"when other options have been exhausted"... Which any other option is even attempted? Yes that is right none. Mass redirection is unhelpful. The more productive way to deal with poor quality articles are through article improvement drives. How many have been attempted on the episode articles before the merge (not merge in actuality mass-redirectification)? I find it hard to swallow that '''all''' of the episodes of the 24 TV series is automatically non-notable. All movies are automatically notable even if they haven't even been produced yet, why are episodes of TV shows that aired internationally for multiple seasons automatically "non-notable"? More people watched them than theater movies so they received a greater reception by simple logic. This mass redirectification based on how "lowly" fans are is disruptive. It is not in line with ] at all. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Supporting both IBAN and TBAN'''. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--] ] 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also with your approach we would not have any intermediate steps between a featured/good article and a stub. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 12:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
*Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. ] (]) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems you're confusing wiki-] with real-world notability. Wiki-notability is established by ]. As far as I can see, TNN gave fans several weeks to find third-party reliable sources for ''any'' episode. If they can't or won't do that for at least one episode, that's a pretty good sign that (1) no such sources exist, making the episodes non-notable by wiki-standards, or (2) no-one cares to improve the articles in the immediate future to establish notability. In both cases, "other options have been exhausted," allowing deletion. But the articles aren't deleted, they only get redirected. And you're right, movies (exactly like most TV shows and books) are notable, so they get an article. But not every act of a movie gets an article. Not every chapter of a book gets an article. And not every episode gets an article, unless wiki-notability has been established. &ndash; ] <sup>]•c</sup> 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.] (]) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I am not confusing anything. Notability isn't temporary and if something is notable in real-world, it most certainly is notable here. Every article on wikipedia starts out as a stub. What you are doing is banning stub articles on fiction.
:::BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As for your point number one: how do you know weather or not they exist in all of the 5000+ articles that were mass removed. They might not exist right now but they might be added in an article improvement drive. We do not have a ].
::::I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.] (]) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As for your point number two: that attitude isn't how wikipedia articles are written. With that rationale all stub and start class articles would need to be removed.
:::::talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
::::Every chapter of a book and every TV episode is not the same thing. TV episodes also have acts and arts. A TV episode or two occupies the same time span as a movie. It is a series of movies. When you add up every episode of a TV show they almost always add up to something much much longer than an average movie.
:::::concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.] (]) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Why should each individual harry potter book get an article? Because it is a series of books. Or how about Star Trek movies? Why should the episode articles be destroyed when there are eleven movie articles? Even ] gets an article. I see no requirement to mass merge TV episodes in general into one article.
:::::::The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.] (]) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Then you start asking the questions "What makes the list notable if the contents of the list is non-notable?" or "What makes the show notable if it's episodes aren't notable".
::::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::::The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. ] (]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Children cannot consent, their parents can. ]&nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? ] (]) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--] (]) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. ] (]) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support TBAN''', no comment on IBAN. . ]&nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose any sanctions''' I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate ] on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. ] (]) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support TBAN''', indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this ] type editing, whether it is attempting to ] or simply ] discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. ] (]) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. ] (]) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ''Skyshifter'', if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to descelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. ''']]''' 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite () to boot. ] (]) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY.
:<br>
:Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am.
:<br>
:Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages.
:<br>
:'''I support''' the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community.
:<br>
:'''I oppose''' with the IP-ban because if anything this '''SHOULD’VE''' ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing.
:<br> ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. ] (]) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents.
:::NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent.
:::Cheers, <br> ] (]) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::This reply reminded me of the essay ]. ] (]) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. ] (]) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. ] (]) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at ] accusing me of coming to their talk page to "{{tq|further troll me with this nonsense warning}}". '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --] (]) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' both. To make sure I haven't lost my goddamn mind, I read this discussion '''''twice'''''. I personally believe Darwin is in the wrong here. His behavior on enwiki violates both GENSEX and BLP sanctions (), and he doubled down when he had the chance to defend himself (] and comments above). Even if we play devil's advocate and assume Darwin's claims about Sky being a troll/vandal and sockmaster (which is a heavy accusation to make) on ptwiki are true, her work on enwiki has shown that she's changed for the better. This is coming from a person who has interacted with Sky a couple of times (], ], ]); she is an amazing editor on here. For the sake of everyone involved and to avoid another mess like this, the sanctions above should be enforced. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 08:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


=== ] taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge. ===
::::Here's the problem with the issue of reliable sources -- To people like TTN, '''nothing''' is a relaible source, whether it's an official site, a fansite, or media-related site. I could claim that there was an episode of ] where Zack & Cody snuck off to a ] concert, did cocaine with her backstage, had three-way sex with her, and made her reveal her secret identity, with all the links as evidence, and it would ''still'' be deleted. Of course, anybody who knows of both these shows, knows that would never happen, so such an article would ''deserve'' to be deleted. ----] 16:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
{{hat|1=100% affairs of other wikis. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|result=This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Misplaced Pages which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this ]s on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Misplaced Pages ANI. Please do not reopen this section. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
On the 29th of December, ] started an AN/I based on a claim that ], a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination . AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate.


She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn.


But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log.
:::::I'm (currently) not banning anything, especially where I see merits. Having dozens and hundreds of episode articles without established notability for long times however looks like "having no merrits". If I have the wrong impression in a case (we're all human), ''prove it'' by establishing notability and the case shall rest in your favor. The suggested improvement drives can only improve an article if there are sources to begin with, but those don't seem to exist. Again, if you think they exist, ''prove it''.
:::::TV episodes obviously have about the same consumption length as movies and books, but they are doled out in a much higher frequency. It takes about half a year to make a movie; it takes about a year to write a good book; it takes an average of about two or three weeks (1 year divided by 20 episodes, disregarding the pipeline time) to produce a TV episode. Remember, an encyclopedia focuses on the production of a piece of art, and there is obviously much more secondary information available for a work that took longer to produce. So comparing of TV episodes to acts of movies or chapters of books holds up much better than comparing them to movies and books directly.
:::::Besides, (this may be a case of differing opinions, but ] happens to agree), subjects should IMO grow from within. If there is enough (sourced!) material and encyclopedic treatment, info may be split out into subarticles. Creating dozens of stubby subarticles in the hope that reliable third-party sources exist somewhere is not the way (]) &ndash; summarizing the information in a list until it can be broken out is much better for encyclopedic coverage in the long term. &ndash; ] <sup>]•c</sup> 22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As an example of the overzealous attempts at enforcing ] that TTN is carrying out, see the discussion of his recent merge-tagging of in its entirety, with his immediately shooting down any attempt to justify any particular episode's existence. Note that some of these episodes first aired as recently as three weeks ago, yet he's claiming that the episodes will "never" manage to be able to demonstrate notability, regardless of how much work is put into them. ] 13:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Edited to fix my screwup that resulted in no link to the category, and ANI being miscategorized at a KP episode. Whoopsie! ] 13:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage ( and in ]), ] over other users and using ] and ] to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it ], with all the proofs). The ] taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever.
:Randomly surveying twenty of the articles in that category:
:*None of them had any third-party references (eighteen of them had no references whatsoever).
:*None of them had any real-world information (barring trivia)
:*All of them were composed of plot summary, trivia, quotations, or some combination thereof.
:Forget merge tagging; If I had the time/effort/tools/patience to deal with inclusionists, I would have merged all of them on sight. If you want to help out, just type up paragraph summaries for each episode and stick them on the episode list, as is the step recommended before splitting into individual episode articles. That was half of the point of the merge tags. TTN is doing nothing wrong in terms of merge tagging and redirection. Just like ] and his crusade against nonfree images, TTN is simply enforcing poorly-enacted Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on a massive scale and getting loads of crap for it. There might be something to say about his unwillingness to discuss, but that's about it. '']]]'' 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::We do not immediately delete articles without sources. If that is an argument all stubs must be deleted right away. Also articles like ] should also go. As for the guidelines as demonstrated above, they never had any consensus for such an alteration to begin with (Sure I can alter any MOS guideline to a Notability guideline and butcher an entire topic of my choice). It is simply an article development procedure. Please do not complicate this exclusively for fiction related topics. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::You can't compare the deletion of images with the deletion of articles, You Can't See Me. With "Durin's crusade" against unfree images, these images will have severe copyright problems if they are left unattended by admins. With articles, the same implication doesn't apply and needs suitable consensus before deletion. TTN is redirecting articles without consensus. The process of finding lack of notability is illustrated at ], and TTN is not trying to find sources for the articles, merely redirecting. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I don't necessary agree with the approach and rate that TTN is tackling these articles, but there '''is''' fair-use concerns (among other issues) with excessive plot information; yes, it's not as strong as the need to protect WP from non-free images, but it does exist (see ]). There is timeliness needed for non-free images as by April 2008, WP's board has stated they all must be tagged with rationale, or be deleted. There is no such timeliness for plot descriptions, but still, the less time they spend in such a state, the better. --] 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::TTN is also failing to follow the rules set out in ] and ] for dealing with non-notable episode articles. He does not bother with the <nowiki>{{Notability|episode}}</nowiki> templates, nor does he actually merge the articles he tags for merging after asking one of his preferred admins to close the discussions, he merely redirects the articles en masse without any merging of information from the article or transwiki-ing the material to either the Annex or a specialty Wiki. He also asserts that the implementation of ] and ] constitutes a "larger consensus" that automatically overrules any objecting consensus that may be developed on article discussion pages, thus making it impossible to defend any article that may actually be a stub--or possibly passing the notability requirements--as inappropriate to merge or redirect, thus completely ignoring both ] and the facts that ] and that ] in building it. ] particularly applies; the first I had heard ] and ] came after they had already been implemented. I don't see any links in the current new-user welcome templates (or the policy articles to which they link!) to the locations where such policies are discussed and developed; I suspect that, like me, many Wiki editors don't even know where you would look to find out about impending policy changes, much less contribute to discussion about them. How can a true consensus on the issue be gained if most of the userbase doesn't know where to look to participate? ] 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::WP:EPISODE does not have a "large consensus" or any consensus behind it as a notability guideline. It should be reverted back in being a MOS guideline. If an episode notability guideline is necesary, that can be drafted separately and be put into use if it receives approval from the community (everybody, by that I don't mean a 'select' group of users). --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::No, TTN is not merging the articles, but he is not deleting them; he is redirecting them. Furthermore, he is not redirecting them on sight: he is slapping merge tags on them. That should give the regulars at those articles the following message: clean up or merge, because this article isn't looking too good. I don't believe any single person would have the time to strip down every episode article to its bare essentials; it takes a taskforce to do that. So rather than waiting, TTN just redirected the articles. Rather than complaining that he's not merging, merge them yourself. Also, if you think that WP:EPISODE does not have large consensus, then go change it. If it does not have consensus, you'll get away with it. If you get reverted quickly and repeatedly by different editors, then it does have large consensus. There's no point in saying, however, that it does not have large consensus without testing it. '']]]'' 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::A close look at TTN's redirects demonstrates that they are less "careful examination and assessment" and more "slap a tag on hundreds of articles, ignore any objections, and redirect anyways." As others have mentioned, there is ''no effort whatsoever'' to actually do any work to merge. None. Zero. Zip. If you question this, the automatic reply is that there is nothing of value, or that you're just a fan of the series who doesn't know any better. Talk pages get a boilerplate statement that demonstrates TTN hasn't actually read through the pages. There are also numerous examples of mistakes from the rapid-fire approach, including , and - which then have to be fixed by other editors. In fact, the overall attitude seems to be "somebody else can clean up after me". --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'd like to note, as the most recent example I've seen of this attitude of "I'll just zap 'em all, and someone else can handle tidying up all the problems it leaves behind later," his most recent comment on ]. For those who don't want to check the link themselves, the short version is that, after several people spent a couple of days bashing their heads against the wall trying to get him to work with them, I found out that there actually is already a KP Wiki, and recommended, as ] suggests, transwiki-ing the disputed articles over there, redirecting only AFTER the transwiki process is completed. TTN's response was, "That can be done over time by the interested editors. It's easy to take information from redirects, so that won't be a problem." He has yet to respond to the questions posed about that reply--in particular, my asking why, when WP:FICT says to transwiki BEFORE redirecting, he feels that the articles should be redirected to the list page first, then transwikied. ] 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:::You expect any human being or the wikipedia community as a whole have the capability to deal with the speed of his tagging. Are you seriously suggesting that he has attempted improving all 5000+ of the articles before he has tagged them? How much effort do you think he spent per article? And mind you we are only looking at TTN's edits. There are others who are also mass tagging pages and later rectifying.
:::What is the rush? The ]? If this is acceptable behaviour, why do we need TTN or others for all for this? A bot can mass redirectify pages more efficiently if there is a general ban on character and episode articles. His actions aren't even in line with the policies/guidelines he is allegedly enforcing.
:::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::At least TTN has started to bother with merge-tagging articles before he mass-redirects them, even if he's not using the notability tags that are supposed to be used before a merge proposal. I've seen other users, such as ], who just do the mass redirect without any warning. I can understand the desire to reduce the amount of articles about fiction on Misplaced Pages, but I have serious problems with the methods being used to do so, including unwarned mass-redirects; changes of MOS guidelines to general guidelines with little fanfare; a liberal dose of Wikilawyering; and a general unwillingness, on the part of those carrying out the campaign, to discuss, compromise, form consensus, or even consider other points of view. ] 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::The problem I have with TTN is that he isn't merging anything, he is deleting these pages without placing any useful information into the List Of Episodes. Over in the List of My Name is Earl episodes, which he wants to "merge"/delete all, ] suggest keeping the episode pages around for a few days so they can be approved, while TTN says that they can just be reversed after the merge to be imrpoved. He "really doubts" the articles can be approved and he "doesn't care," and passed on my question on what he did to try to improve the articles. Instead of merge and re-direct, he should do what he is actually doing and go for Articles for Deletion. ] 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::If you're problem is that he isn't merging, then why not merge the episodes yourself? You have access to article history, so you can easily draw information from that, and I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about the subject matter of some shows than TTN. Bettering Misplaced Pages is a community effort; there's no way you could possibly expect any one single user to perform a merge of this scale. '']]]'' 08:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was '''personal''' and for '''revenge'''. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under ], here called ] I think, and ]/], and in the AN/I above she's commiting ], repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment.
===edit point===
The problem seems to be spreading to character articles: ]... --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 09:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


<span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:I found this comment in the Talk page of ] quite revealing: ""Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance [for episodes." {{unsigned|Notthegoatseguy|11:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)}}
::You mean also mind which demonstrates that he isn't following ]. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::Then again, most of the articles in question aren't following ], and removing policy violations isn't a bad thing. I have been involved in only a few of these disputes on episode articles, and while I don't agree with everything TTN does, it's very one-sided how all the complaints are about his actions, and none about the experienced editors who create and/or defend articles which are nothing but (or in the best cases almost nothing but) plot summaries, and then are amazed that their policy violating articles are redirected (not deleted, despite what they often claim). We shouldn't be focusing solely on one editor trying to solve this problem (with errors in tagging and judgment, like most of us), but also and perhaps perhaps more on the editors ''creating'' the problem in the first place. I'll give an example: when DanTD creates ] this month, he is creating an article which is basically one big violation of ]. The only good thing to do with this article in the short term is to redirect it to ]. It looks to me like you would then complain about my action (the redirection), but not about the initial creation of the article, which caused the problem in the first place. Not following a guideline is not so bad when you do it to get rid of something not following policies... ] 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Well said, thanks. And I have redirected it. --] 15:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::() --] 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Don't you think it would be better to reach a consensus first rather than impose your will? There obviously is a lack of agreement as demonstrated with above comments. What is the hurry? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::There's a reason for that; I ''undid'' your redirection. Frankly I can't see what makes it "one big violation" of any of Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Plus, the fact that you tagged all the other Daria episodes(unlike ], which you just ditched) doesn't exactly make writing here so pleasent either. Now, I had hope for a while that transwiking the articles would make things easier, but that hope died when I tried to do it. ----] 15:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::: If you check the link a gave above, you'll see that ''I linked to your undo''. You are adding unencyclopaedic content to Misplaced Pages; please stop. I tagged ''some'' of the episode articles ''after'' your undo, including ]; see ]. I will look at the other episode articles when I get the chance. You might want to find a few sources for those episode articles you wish to keep. Given the probability that they don't exist, you might want to bone-up transwiki-ing them outta here. --] 15:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Need I remind you that the whole criteria for "unencyclopedic content" is at best questionable? I'm pretty sure I have on numerous occasions. ----] 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::: We've met? I don't recall where. Anyway, unsourced, non-notability-establishing, material about fiction written in an in-universe style ''is'' unencyclopaedic content. And that's multiple, reliable, third-party sources that are non-trivial and specific to the subject at hand. Try a wiki that's not an encyclopaedia for that sort of content. --] 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: No, we haven't met. But I have called the rampant misuse of the guidelines as an excuse to delete every episode article. ----] 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


:{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cquote|''']:''' Misplaced Pages is not a ], and rules are not the purpose of the community. ] should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, ], of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ]. Disagreements should be resolved through ] discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.}}
::'@] The evidences are above. I said if you need any '''further''' evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cquote|''']:''' Misplaced Pages articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.}}
:::Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. ] (]) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Articles on wikipedia are neither expected nor required to follow policies and guidelines on creation (unless they violate something like ] or ] and have legal implications - nut that does not apply in this case). Guidelines are there to guide towards a finished product. They are not a license for inclusion or deletion. ] should be avoided especially on disagreements. All discussions on these mass redirectifications are more of a one sided instruction creep...
::::Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There is a process which articles develop which you may agree. Articles develop starting as stubs weather they are related to fiction or not. Most articles are not featured quality so most of them are not in line with numerous guidelines or policies. This same problem exists on fiction related and non-fiction related articles alike. For example: ], the 24th vice president of the United States, is not in line with ]. Mass redirecting all US vice presidents not in line with ] would be disruptive. I am picking this outrageous example simply to illustrate my point. My point being that same concept applies to articles related to fiction and articles not related to fiction alike. Both kinds of articles suffer from the same problem. However lack of quality is not a license for deletion. Notability should be established slowly on an article by article basis with attempts to improve the articles quality before bulk deletions. It should not be used as a license to bulk delete tens of thousands of articles without discussion or despite discussion.
:::::If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. ] (]) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also text on ] contains a lot of "should"'s and "should not"'s and no "must"'s or "must not"'s. No argument against that... But the lack of it is not a license for non-discussion deletion. Of course nor is it a license for non-discussion inclusion. Of course articles related to fiction should contain information more than a plot summary if they are to ever become featured but ] is more of an expectation from the finish product rather than an inclusion/deletion criteria.
::::::I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Redirectification is a kind of defacto deletion as all content on articles are mass removed often without a discussion. Any restoration of the information is also reveted by the redirectifying party - a defacto protection. Deletion and protection can be conducted without the use of admin tools like that but would almost always be disruptive. Content being in the history is of no use to the reader.
:::::::Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. ] (]) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Experienced creators are expected to create articles that don't flat out violate one of the main policies, like ]. This has nothing to do with instruction creep and everything with maintaining our core policies. The article in question was created a week ago, so it isn't a question of picking on it right after creation. The author clearly wasn't intending to make it policy-compliant in the short term, and I fail to see why you defend that attitude. I don't expect the article to be featured quality immediately, that's a bad strawman. But you seem to imply that you cannot first create a stub indicating why the episode is notable, and later flesh it out with a plot summary where needed.
:::::::::I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. ] (]) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Claiming that ], an article completely unrelated to the scope of this discussion (first error), is not compliant with our notability guideline (second error: I complain of a policy violation, you of a guideline violation), is quite laughable (which is the third error in that one claim), as it makes a clear statement of notability, and provide sources in the external links section (or is the ] not good enough for you?). Claiming that "wikipedia is not a plot summary" only is vald for finsihed articles is completely laughable as well, as that means that one can never use it as an argument (no article is ever finished, is it?), making it completely irrelevant. I doubt that people have included it in the policy only for laughs. Apart from mixing all these things, you also still mix redirection and deletion, despite your last point trying to rectify that. All in all, a lot of wikilawyering and no serious discussion.
::::::::{{ec}} I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? ] (]) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I suppose it is of no use pointing out that the article should never have been created, according to ], a guideline both you and people like DanTD know very well? Complaining that people should not redirect according to a guideline which wasn't followed in the first place is rather hypocritical. ] 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:It is time for a ]. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. ] (]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You obviously aren't aware that ] was rewritten by an "elite" group of people without any real discussion or consensus. It was a MOS guideline not a notability one. The tone of this pose is a personal attack. I refuse to reply to it any further. I am no laughing mater. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::I added more evidence and context. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::(If you change your post, please change your signature (timestamp) as well.) I don't think that the tone of a post ''can'' be a personal attack. The post was direct, certainly, and uncivil, perhaps. That's my way of reacting to experienced editors who start wikilawyering and using straw man arguments.
:::You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::As for your point on WP:EPISODE: which version do you refer to? Something even older than e.g. March 2006? As my arguments are already contained in that one.] 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Your statement doesn't even make sense. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The article on ] is ''not'' irrelevant to the topic. What TTN is doing is saying if one doesn't fit, they all must go. ----] 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::We can add ] to the reasons you are blocked then. ] (]) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Am I? And where am I in violation of ]? <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. ] (]) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


:I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
===edit point===
::The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:People complain about TTN redirecting episode articles because they don't follow ]. I give the argument that we shouldn't focus on the redirection of the articles, but on the creation of them, which shouldn't have happened in the first place. White Cat then starts about an article which has nothing to do with either TTN, ], or ], but according to White Cat with ]. How, then, is this relevant? Perhaps it would be more relevant if you explained why you create articles consisting of nothing but a plot summary, even though that goes against both ] and ]. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I've read many of the posts on the Portuguese wiki, and it is pretty clear that the Skyshifter's complaint above is a deliberate expansion of drama from there. The Portugese wiki is not Uganda, people do not get banned there for being Trans, and former admins don't get banned without causing a lot of disruption. It is clear these two users really strongly dislike each other and need to stop interacting in any way.--] (]) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Work in progress. Articles that only contain a plot summary aren't banned. Nor is there any consensus what-so-ever to mass blank them.
*:People obviously doesn't get banned for being trans. She was sysop there, commited some errors, but stayed there even after 5 months of being on estrogen. And the community knew it. What caused her block there was calling the project a sewage and then outbreaking and attacking other users. I suggest they get a two-way IBAN, at least, not the one-way as proposed on the other AN/I. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Articles on episodes aren't '''required''' but '''recommended''' to follow ] a mere MOS style guideline. Even as a MOS guideline it did not have a whole lot of consensus behind it as MOS guidelines generally aren't expected to have community wide agreement as they are often over trivial style issues such as the order of names of Japanese people. What MOS guideline should I use for episode article related styles? None exists.
::On the other hand notability guidelines do need a good amount of consensus. If not no one will take them seriously. Hence why I can't take something as unstable as ] seriously. As a MOS guideline there are some sane remarks I agree with but thats it.
::I take ] seriously, I take ] seriously, I take ] seriously, I take ] seriously as well as dozens of other pages. I am looking at edition of ] and I see a . I do not see an accompanying community wide discussion at all. Page history contains other significant alterations without an adequate discussion as well. Furthermore the same people rewriting ] and ] are the ones mass redirectifying fiction articles. For example TTN who has not showed up here much is actually among the people editing the guideline. People who actual write fiction related articles aren't present in the discussion or are a minority. Meatpuppetary may be the case. This kind of covert meddling with policies or guidelines is disruptive. '''Sure''' I can rewrite any guideline simply to give me a ''legitimate sounding'' way to mass blank/merge/redirectify/vandalise/whatever an entire topic of my choice. If a policy or guideline is altered or created in a manner not in line with ] it is '''void'''. Surely nobody is suggesting that we should alter guidelines and policies on our whim simply to use it for our own personal needs, right?
::If I were to mass blank/redirectify all stub articles of any kind as per ], I'd be blocked for ] but when TTN is doing it he is nearly given a medal for it. Ultimately your statement is in conflict with ] and the purpose of stubs. You seemingly expect articles to be featured quality on creation. That violates common sense as well.
::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::"Work in progress"? Let's take some random articles tagged by TTN. The Big Splash was nothing but a plot summary six months after creation. Truth be Told had no improvements except a list of guest stars in four months. Won't Ask, Won't Tell has no improvements in a year and a half. The Storm has no improvements in three months. Power Trip / To Heck and Back was only expanded with a trivia section in over a year.
:::You will probably be able to find exceptions, but to call these "works in progress" is not really an accurate description. These are either abandoned, or the editors consider them finished. These go against NOT badly, and any discussion of how our guidelines came to be (it seems to have evolved from an "elite" group of people to "meatpuppeting", so I wonder what you would call them if you took CIVIL and NPA ''not'' seriously) is secondary (and avoids the previously mentioned fact that the Episode guideline has been virtually unchanged since at least March 2006). These articles, many many thousands of them, violate our policies and guidelines and don't improve over months and even years. Letting them sit in that state just "because they are stubs" is useless, and makes a mockery of our policies and guidelines. Only blaming the people acting upon them, while ignoring those creating these problems in the first place, is very one sided. Blaming it all on the people rewriting guidelines against consensus makes me wonder which versions you do prefer. From FICTION, January 7 2006: "If you find articles (particularly stubs) on fictional characters (and places, concepts, etc.) you may want to be bold and merge them into an appropriate article. This allows the information to become more organized and easier to access. However, if you should do so, do not delete meaningful content.". Oh wait, this explicitly states that it is a good thing to merge such articles, ''particularly stubs'' even. Perhaps, just to makes things clearer, you could point us to what versions of which policies and guidelines you feel (more) correctly represent consensus, so that at least we can discuss something concrete instead of those vague allegations against the meatpuppeting elite. ] 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, for one thing, there's ] itself, which says that stubs shouldn't be merged just for being stubs. TTN also makes no effort to improve any of the articles he tags, nor does he make any effort to merge information, instead just redirecting it with an attitude that seems to be, "I can do it myself; someone else can clean up the mess I leave behind later." Likewise, it seems highly counterproductive to just mass-tag articles without notifying the WikiProjects concerned with the articles in question of the plan to do so; notifying the WikiProjects might well obviate the need to do the tag, by getting people to conduct an improvement campaign.
::::However, given past history with people trying to discuss, compromise, or otherwise build consensus with the people pushing this as their pet issue, that might not work anyway, since the attitude tends to be that it's "impossible" to improve the articles in question, based purely on their subject matter, without any evidence that it wouldn't be possible beyond the assertion of impossibility, and not deigning to answer any questions regarding the exceedingly murky details in ] and ]. As I saw someone point out in one of these discussions, if this group's standards were expanded to cover all of Misplaced Pages, we would have nothing in between stubs and Good Articles. ] 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::But they aren't merged "just for being stubs", they are merged because they are policy and guideline violating stubs. Furthermore, I have not said that TTN is faultless, but why would he need to improve the articles he tags if even the editors who created them can't be bothered? He thinks, rightly or wrongly, that most episode pages are overkill, and has no interest in improving them. I see no reason why he should either. And he doesn't leave behind a mess, he leaves behind a better encyclopedia. As for notifiying the projects: they are by now more than aware of what he is doing, and in most cases, no improvements are forthcoming. As for your second paragraph, you still fail to see the problem with those ''creating'' these articles, or with the articles themselves, making this discussion (which is already way too long) completely pointless. As long as you have the opinion that articles which are nothing but plot summaries should be allowed to stay that way indefinitely because it may perhaps someday that some editor turns it into a decent article, you will only be able to see fault with those redirecting such articles, and not with those creating them, making a useful discussion and looking for a possible compromise fruitless. ] 09:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I don't necessarily mean that the articles that are nothing but plot summaries shouldn't be merged; I hope that's not what people think I meant by this. I'm talking about articles more along the lines of, for example, ], which is, in my opinion, currently a borderline case as regards Wikinotability; it already covers two of the guidelines in ] (plot summary and critical reception--in this case, fan reviews, as there are few major critics who review individual episodes of ANY television show, much less a "kiddie cartoon"), and has analysis of the psychological implications of the episode's ] that, while currently OR, can be investigated and possibly sourced and improved, which could then meet a third notability requirement (real-world influences on the story). As for the fourth requirement, I've been digging through discussions that the production staff have had with the public, looking for information germane to that particular episode; some nuggets have turned up, but I haven't yet incorporated them into the article.
::::::I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the mass-tagging of these articles like TTN has done, by just going and setting a category tag, is questionable at best, since the people doing it refuse to consider whether some of them are close enough to notability that attempting improvement should be done instead of simply merging them. No, articles like ] shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages (and yes, it's on my target list for a complete rewrite that will hopefully put it more in line with the guidelines), and unless an episode article is less than a month or two old, even one that's merely a short plot summary should be merged. However, ones that have information beyond the plot summary should be ''improved'', not eliminated.
::::::Irony: There are six Kim Possible episodes that won't have their episode articles merged in any event, because they made up the two stories that Disney Channel randomly chose to designate "original movies" instead of three-part episodes... despite being produced as three-part episodes, and counted as such towards the "65 episode rule." However, because they're officially designated as a "movie" by Disney's marketing types, they're considered automatically notable. Don't you love semantics? ] 15:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::"<blockquote>
:::You will probably be able to find exceptions, but to call these "works in progress" is not really an accurate description. These are either abandoned, or the editors consider them finished.
</blockquote>
That's not true at all, Fram. In my case, what actully happens is that I have to wait for an episode to be shown in reruns again, so I can get more of the details straightened out. If not, then I'm ususally busy with another article. But even that doesn't mean anything to TTN. If it's an episode article, he wants to shoot it down, for no other purpose than to build his own edit count! I know of plenty that could use rewrites, extensions and other fixes, which his kind of deletions & redicrections will take those chances away from all of us! And I STILL say we should reverse everything he does, or most of it! ---- ] 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:You need the rerun for what? To get your plot summary more accurate, in depth, detailed? That is not exactly what we are waiting for, and doesn't solve any of the problems with these articles... As for "for no other purpose than to build his own edit count!", please don't use personal attacks, it doesn't help your case. ] 09:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Here's something else to consider. If an episode has to have elements of the real world in order to be accepted, then many of the episodes of ] should never have been deleted at all, since they contain real-life ] landmarks, and other elements. ----] 23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Not enough. By that logic, all episodes of Law & Order need articles. And all episodes of Friends. Setting alone doesn't justify the 'Real World Elements' condition you posit above. However, an episode of Law & Order which specifically addresses exploitation of WTC 9/11 heroism and recompensation, as I believe at least one has, WOULD have an argument for a uniwue episode article. In such a case, the reflection of a real world series of events and the creative team's reaction might be notable, especially in the context of the articles which I have read regarding treatment of 9/11 in the media. If such an article mentioned the episode, in any particular context, it would satisfy at least MY interpretations of episode notability. Even with all that, you'd have say, Guest Stars list (regular cast being backlinked to the main article), Plot summary, two para, (one law, one Order), and perhaps two to three para about the subject matter's importance, making for, with the lead, a 7 paragraph article. That's a notable article to me.
:::TTN's efforts, while brusque and occasionally curt, are solid edits. Any editor who feels an episode deserves the article can revert and discuss, and improve the article. However, I've followed out a number ofthe links, and so on, and I've yet to see anyone pick a link to an article and say 'but this had all that and got redirected anyways, WHY?". These articles represent a range from overeager editors to fancrufty articles packed with trivia, word for word plot summaries, and so on. Most of these articles should've been nominated for deletion instead, but the crash on AfD would've been absurd. Every Wikiproject would've defended their own, the deletionists and inclusionists would muster up in brigades, and accusations of POINT, PROCESS, IDONTLIKEIT, and so on.
:::No one seems to object to the assessments of the articles: Lacking in citation, real-world context, overly detialed plot summaries, trivia lists, peacock terms and images, and so on. No one denies that all material is available via the Article Histories. No one denies the article material can be retrieved and improved by such a manner.
:::As such, I thoroughly support the redirecting of all these episodes, not one is NOT subject to reversion and improvement. Given that tagging, talking and so on often went unheard, and since anyone who creates an episode finds the article in his/her watchlist, we can assume many editors simply ignored the taggings. Let's move on. ] 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::No, let's ''not'' move on, as long as these articles are being given hatchet-jobs by people like TTN! The trouble with people like him, is that he fails to see how many of these regulations contradict one another, making writing them impossible without alerting the deletion radar. We can use citation, real-world context, guest star lists, etc., and they '''still''' get tagged for redirection or deletion. Either way, we can't win. And don't try to tell me that lie that "any editor who feels an episode deserves the article can revert and discuss, and improve the article" either, because even when we do, he deletes them. This is wrong, and he and his defenders need to take a hint. ----] 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::What hint would that be? One of your comments above was revealing, I think. " If an episode has to have elements of the real world in order to be accepted " No, that is not at all what is asked. An episode may be complete utter fantasy with no connection to the real world at all and still have its own article, ''as soon as the real world has commented in depth on the episode''. Are there any ] (not TV.com, not any fan forums, not an amateur webzine) who have commented at length about the ''episode'' (not the series, not the actors, but the episode) or about a specific aspect of the episode? Then you may have a good reason to create and keep a separate article about that episode. If not, bundle it into a list of episodes (or a list per season, if the seasons are long enough). It's fairly simple, actually. ] 09:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::The hint would be that he's too uptight about what's acceptable, and takes things too far. And yes, he ''is'' doing this to build up his edit count. ] states that his one goal is redirecting episode articles. You claim that an episode can be pure fantasy "as soon as the real world has commented in depth on the episode," but by that criteria, '''nothing''' can be written. As for your remark about "reliable sources," as I've repeatedly stated on these talk pages, if you take away the fansites, official sites, tv.com, the ], and sites like that, '''THERE ARE NO SOURCES LEFT.''' ----] 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Please read TTN's user page again. It states or implies nowhere that he redirects episode articles ''to build up his editcount''. It gives no reason at all, and it is your interpretation that that is the reason, making it a personal attack. Again, stop it. As for the rest of your post: for the episodes for which that is true: too bad, then they may not have a Misplaced Pages article. But there are enough episodes of TV series that do get extensively reviewed in newspapers and so on. Take a look at things like this review of the final episode of The Soprano's from the New Zealand Herald: coupled with the many, many other reviews and discussions of this episode, it should be fairly easy to create an article about this episode, and lo and behold, ] has quite some background material (real world references). So your claims that "nothing can be written" is false, but the episode has to have received some specific attention. As we are running in circles and I don't seem to really get through to you or White Cat, I'll not contribute to this way too long discussion any more unless new elements turn up. This page can better be used for more pressing matters than this content and policy interpretation discussion. ] 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*I agree with Fram, above. This is the usual grousing from the usual suspects who seem to believe that their fan-driven enthusiasm trumps larger, established, consensus-driven policy. Folks, if you really care that much, just transwiki the information to a wikia where you can write as much in-universe detail as you want without having to worry about, how to say it ... '''encyclopedic standards.''' As it is, this is not actionable and I would suggest that ]'s and others' actions are verging on disruptive in these continuous efforts to thwart the good faith application of a core and fundamental pillar of Misplaced Pages. ] 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Regardless of what TTN's user pags ''says'', it's clear that he is doing it to bring his edit count up. I used to think he was editing them because he didn't like them or find them useful, but I was wrong. As for your comment about articles being created on the basis of "fan-driven enthusiasm," I'd have to say you're wrong too, Eusebeus. Yesterday I noticed somebody who created an article for an episode of ] asked TTN why it was being deleted, and got no answer. I pointed out that writers of these episodes are all getting the same crap from him, and got flamed for it as much as I'm getting here. For the record, I'm not a fan of that show at all.
::One aspect of the policy is to discourage featured music when writing an article, but most for most episodes of ], featured music is a key element, with the exceptions of scattered episodes in later seasons. The New Zealand Herald article on the series finale of ] may be okay, but that goes back to my argument on the ] episodes of ]. Unless the episodes are that huge, they're worthless, and might as well not exist. Also, one major problem with newspaper-based references, is that the newspapers that run them, tend to save them only for a short period of time, before they demand that you subscribe to their service in order to read their articles, and even then they only go so far back in time with them. Try going to ]' website, and see if you can find a link to the ]'s disruption of the ], and subsequent attempt to assasinate ]. You won't find it there. You'd have to go to a library to look it up on microfilm or microfiche.
::As for transwiking these episodes, I ''have'' tried to do so, but it has been proven far more difficult than I thought. ----] 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::It's clear to you, and only you, that TTN is pursuing an increased edit count. To me, it's clear he's interested in clearing crufty writing about how cool Hannah Montana's hair is out of an ENCYCLOPEDIA. This is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, it requires context. Real World Context to validate notability is first. If No one notable in the real world gives a crap, then no article. Two, whatever the real world writer finds interesting needs to be tied to the context of that episode, which means that an article solely consisting of an assertion of notability in the lead, followed by a ridiculously expository plot retelling, and a trivia list saying 'so and so mentioned it in the New York Times' also fails it. This really isn't tough stuff to get. IF you really feel each article matters, go start a wiki for that show. Butthis continuing descent into a tirade and personal attacks against TTN is not helping your case. Have you yet found an article which was redirected which held solid reliable citations about Real World Context(I should copyright that), gave a brief plot summary, and a section discussion the Real World Context(r)? If not, then you know you have no legs to stand on, not with policy, which is clear to many others in this section, and not on errors. Errors might suggest he's moving to fast, or genuinely indiscriminate. I suspect that if asked, TTN, could provide specific cases where he found an article met quality standards and left it alone. Can you find a mistake? ] 20:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
===edit point===
*We have clear standards governing encyclopedic content. Upholding those standards is laudable. Dragging the issue to AN/I is not. This discussion should be closed and, moreover, serves as a clear endorsement of what TTN has been doing. ] 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*:Alterations to the policies are controversial, making his edits based on the controversially altered policies controversial. There is no endorsement that I can see. "Upholding those standards" (based on consensus) through mass deletion is just not an acceptable way to approach to the matter. We would not have anything but featured articles if that were the case. Or even featured articles can be removed if you interpret WP:NOT "right". Deletionism is one thing, but this goes far far beyond that. How is inline with ] or ]? Hmm?
*:This attitude is quite hostile. You are supposed to work with people and yet you are showing them the door. WP:NOT has been quoted many times but I think combative attitude falls under ]. Probably the lamest kind ever...
*:--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*::This kind of thing is what I've been trying to tell them. You can edit out how cool Hannah Montana's hair looks in one episode or the other, without deleting the whole thing. TTN simply seeks to delete the whole things. Also, looking back at that New Zealand Herald article, I didn't see as much real world context there as Eusebus claimed there was, compared to other TV shows. Most of what I've seen there only existed within the world of the cast of The Sopranos.
*::One other thing, regarding the question of how encyclopedic an article is or not; When I wrote that article for the KP episode ], the only non-encyclopedic thing I could find was one comment on the the talk page. ----] 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*:::The key issue isn't the specifics but the reluctance for TTN and others to even engage in a discussion. Edits to policy and guidelines should have self-evident reasons. Major alterations such as... umm... '''A COMPLETE REWRITE''' needs a consensus that is accepted community wide BEFORE being applied to the guidline page. "Hey I made a few edits, likey?" (directed at 3, 4 people) is no way to alter a guideline. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*:::: Balderdash. I have attempted to engage you in discussion on pages such as ], ] and ], I've gotten nothing but disruption and you avoiding the core issue - the non-encyclopaedic nature of ] articles. You seem to have made no edits whatsoever with an eye towards actually addressing the concerns editors have expressed about these articles. You have been disruptive and duplicitous — and that is ''all''.. --] 11:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
*::: I've just reviewed ] and found it wanting; all plot and trivia and ''no conformance to guidelines''. I redirected it to the LOE and commented to that effect at the merge discussion. --] 10:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' TTN's efforts. --] 10:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
*:That isn't surprising. You have been endorsing him on many of the episode pages where you have no edits. This repetitive imported/imposed "consensus" is part of this overall problem in my opinion.
*:No single user or a group of users should be ''imposing'' a consensus in this matter on a topic by topic basis. If something needs to be done and there is a disagreement over it, ] must be observed. Disputes and disagreements on Misplaced Pages are not resolved by the use of brute force. Dispute resolution is slow and painful at times but has no alternative. Hence why I am not mass reverting TTNs actions even though I have an editorial right for doing so.
*:Also what is the rush? Why should the pages be mass removed as soon as possible? Is there a legal threat stemming from the existence of these pages such as a ], or ] violation? I do not believe so. If there is no reason for an immediate action there does not need to be an immediate action.
*:As for ], you will ignore whatever I have to say as you did so before with the episode articles on Oh My Goddess! episodes which were also redirectified by you. So there is no point in participating in a discussion with a predetermined imposed consensus. So please pull the other leg... Next section is evidence enough on the nature of how these "discussions" are conducted. I can "discuss" that after the overall problem mentioned in this entire thread is resolved. I do not have any reason to rush unlike some people.
*:--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


:I would add that unless I'm missing something, the block discussion on the Portugese Misplaced Pages seems to have been started about 30 minutes before the ANI thread . It has no contributions by DarwIn . It is theoretically possible I guess it somehow factored into the motivation of Skyshifter opening the ANI thread, but this seems extremely unlikely. There's a good chance Skyshifter wasn't even aware of it when opening the thread. In other words, there's no reason to think Skyshifter was even aware they were likely going to be permanently blocked from pt at the time of opening the thread although they did say they weren't going to return. ] (]) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
For most of these articles, saving the plot summary is more trouble than it's wroth. It's not that valuable, and we are never in short supply of people to write summaries. More often than not, they need a complete rewrite in order to summarize the same information but with less detail, or because they're written really badly. What's the point of ] if we don't do anything about it? And, as I've said before, TTN ''is'' listening to people, and has taken much of our advice about giving time for cleanup and for discussion. I don't dispute that there should be a better way for us to deal with these things, so people don't get so mad about it, but TTN isn't violating any policy, and this is a discussion for another talk page. -- ] 10:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it ]. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see . <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:This really demonstrates the rather arrogant and condescending attitude that certain editors have with regards to this issue. ''"Not that valuable"'' really means ''"I don't like them"''; ''"saving the plot summary is more trouble than it's worth"'' is just another way of saying ''"I can't be bothered, since I don't like them"''; and ''"never in short supply of people to write summaries"'' just means ''"someone else can clean up my mess."'' --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Ckatz, I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that is how ''I'' feel. But if you are going to say that, I must ask, do you think it's fair that we have to clean up the mess left behind by other people ''in the first place''? A single user can be responsible for dozens if not hundreds of episode article stubs and plot dumps, with no regards to if an article should exist or not. They were created in this way, and yet you say we cannot remove them in this way? And no, it is not because "I don't like them", and I take offense to the accusation that I would be so shallow. For your information, the last few days I've been helping set up a big transwiki project for ], setting up things on an external wiki on WIkia, because ''when I can'' (I work full time, and I do have a life outside of Misplaced Pages) I do want to give this stuff a home. In life, as in Misplaced Pages, we are forced to set priorities for ourselves, and believe it or not, ''most'' of these articles are in horrible shape, need to be rewritten, and even if fixed up will still usually not have a home on Misplaced Pages. -- ] 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


*This is ''very blatantly'' a tit-for-tat. As mentioned above there is the distinct smell of fishiness about it, and {{tqq|as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log}} - yes, the editor who has ''three FAs'' on en.wiki "came to this project" to do this. Suggest this be promptly closed as I hear a ] inbound. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:There is no consensus on this kinds of edits, they are controversial. If an article is just a plot, there are two ways to fix it: you can either delete it or expand it. Why is "saving the plot summary" any trouble? It just sits there at worst. Looking at the featured episode articles, plot summary is half or one third of such articles content. So the plot summary is an important fraction of a good article and not garbage. Lack of other sections should not be a license for redirection. Other sections seems to be reception and production. Typically only fans and people who watch the show have access to a plot summary (by watching the show), anyone else can gather any remaining information. Each TV show is subject to ratings by default by being on TV (notability != popularity so even non-popular shows are fine). This information exists. TTN is definitely violating the word and spirit of ]. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
*:I am not saying she isn't an avid used of English wiki. I just stated that she took ptwiki matters here for revenge and self-fullfillment. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">]<sup><i><b>]-]</b></i></sup></span> 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you aren't asking for any sanctions against Skyshifter, then why did you open this sub-section, just to sling some mud at her? Give it a rest already, you're just creating more drama than is necessary.]] 08:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I think that the background of this dispute is very relevant. Obviously, neither Skyshifter or Darwin should face any repercussions here for behaviour on pt.wiki, but it isn't possible to understand what is happening here without discussing what happened there. For me, having read what happened over there is the main reason I wouldn't yet TBAN Darwin, and would call for a two-way rather than one way interaction ban.--] (]) 08:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}


==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics==
===Pages protected===
I have fully protected the episode pages as they had descended into edit wars. I protected them in the state I found them in regardless of whether they were redirects or articles at the time. Please follow the ] process to try and come to some agreement. Once the matter is resolved, unprotection can be requested at my talkpage or at ]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 12:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
: offering a clarification: the pages referred to are the individual episode articles of season two of ]; I redirected the articles after much discussion on ]. --] 13:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


]'s uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it ''is'' problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:
== ] trying to "out" ] ==


Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
] is repeatedly trying to reveal or "out" what he believes is the real world identity of ]. The latest example is .


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
This transgression and his repeated personal attacks such as should earn him a long wikipedia vacation. ] <sup> -(])</sup> 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


WP:NPA
:Politely but very firmly ]. For the sake of symmetry I'll keep an occasional eye on your own behavior as well, which a quick check suggests has been somewhat less than exemplary. ] 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
::PJ has had a long history of firm ], and going by his userpage userboxes is totally here to ]. He advocates one position, then totally contradicts with another. I will not make the observations I made above again, but in the same token I make no apologies for having done so. ] 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Profanity
How is this above comment acceptable? on the ANI no less! This user really needs to be blocked, his incivility is quite astounding. ] <sup> -(])</sup> 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
:It's acceptable to me. Your own trolling behaviors have been the subject of previous AN/I threads. I see above a lack of particular repentance, but acknowledgement that futher behaviors will result in big trouble, and an agreement to stop. ] 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
::Further, After commenting here and a few other edits, I went to Recent Changes to watch for vandals, and I found this: ], wherein Prester John is engaged in that same sort of problematic editing referenced about. ] 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
Thanks for noticing that, Thuranx. Can another editor politely remind this aggressive fellow Prester John that my talkpage is '''my''' talkpage (not his), that he has no right to persistently revert his trollish comments on my talkpage, that he can engage in content debates on the article talkpage, and if he wants people to be ''respectful'' to him as an editor that he needs to start behaving '''respectfully''' (for example, see this ). --''']''' <span style="font-size:80%">] ]</span> 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:Wow, just look at . Prester John is well into harassment territory on your page, and I've given him a serious warning. ] | ] 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).
::And now, he's removing from his talk page... <font face = "Trebuchet MS">]<small> (]) (]) (])</small>(public computer)</font> 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Some of the userboxes on his user page are downright problematic, too. ] 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Unicivil
===More on Prester John===
Prester John has a history of being an uncivil edit-warrior. Please see his block log, in which he was recently blocked. Also, . I have tried several times to add that link to ], but he has reverted me. Is that slideshow page appropriate, as its only purpose is to insult other users?--] 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
::'''Continued Incivility'''...I find it unusual that someone like 'Prester John' would complain about others' incivility, when he is continually uncivil and has himself previously been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Prester is famous for ]. However, in recent days I was appalled to see Prester John using the ] page to taunt another editor (User:Brendan.lloyd). The practice of taunting is ] as one of the more serious incivility issues, and in this case it has disrupted other editors' ability to use the talk page for legitimate purposes.


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
::'Prester John' filed this ANI report at '''00:49''' 1-October. Prester was warned on this page (that his behaviour is being watched), by admin ] at '''01:22'''. Yet only an hour and a half after that warning, at '''02:50''', Prester John was clearly harassing User:Brendan.lloyd on , which continued for some time afterwards.


Contact on user page attempted
::I'd like the admins to consider the seriousness of taunting and harassment by User:Prester John (both on private and article talk pages), to consider the fact it has continued after an admin warning on behaviour, and also view it in light of the previous history of Prester John, ] and ]. --] 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
:::His badgering of ] was plainly over the top and I sincerely regret not having seen that. Checking in occasionally, I had only seen where he went around changing "Makkah" to "Mecca" and the like (which is entirely correct per MoS). I'm not going to block since the incident was a couple of days ago and blocking should be preventive rather than punitive. Since I can't watch this guy all day long, and he's given to serious incivility and badgering, would any other admins care to keep an eye out? ] 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
Does anyone here consider this to be a violation of ]? Does categorizing another user's good faith edits as a "drive by" constitute civil discussion? I have never met this user before, so I don't know what provoked such a thing. Can someone explain?--] 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Wow, this guy has quite a history.--] 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


:Think this calls for a fierce ] slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a ] according to ], as this is just an ] and frankly, I don't see ''direct'' personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as {{tq|some diffs from the past few days}} are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Not being polite is not quite the same as being uncivil. Also being polite or being uncivil does not mean that he's wrong. ---- ] 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::Would I be the person to provide you with that {{tq|further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions}}? I did think that it would be more than a ], since that's for {{tq|one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior}} and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern ]. ] (]) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. ''Hob should know better'', and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to ]. But I would ''caution you'' about ] and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your , , and it seems like you're having a problem handling a ] and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
:Furthermore it does appear that you might be ] because your attempts at ] for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. , , , , , , and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding ] and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards ]. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. ]&thinsp;] 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address ''unique issues'' as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. ({{tq|All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.}} ]) Thank you for your time and input.
::] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: {{tq|trying to report other editors in bad faith}}. ] (]) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{OD}}
@]: Jay brought something to my attention with . It looks like there is ] (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think {{!tq|hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason!}} I'm confused. This specific revision also ] about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. {{tq|Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.}} I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, ], what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, '''not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT''', in your own words. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. ] (]) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't see what that has to do with anything. The actual discussion that I had with him is irrelevant, I only wanted a third opinion on his ''tone''. Also, ] states "''Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.''". I am wondering whether or not calling another user's good faith edits a "drive by" is considered civil. Because according to my interpretation of the term, it refers to a situation in which a person drives a car and shoots at people. That doesn't sound like a very nice analogy.--] 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @], you should familiarise yourself with ]. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. ] (]) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a ] slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|BarntToust}} You're being ] and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @], I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a '''formal warning''' or a ] slap is what needs to happen to Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. ] (]) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are ] and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @], I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@], I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. for ''context'', in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. ] (]) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! *curtsy* ] (]) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


*The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. ] (]) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Frankly, I believe that using the term "drive-by edit" is not something that is inherently uncivil. It's actually quite a common expression and effectively describes a certain situation quite succinctly. From what I've seen from the discussion and what led up to it, I'd say his usage was contextually accurate. In this instance I don't believe his past (or future) behaviour has any relevance. He didn't call you names, he wasn't foul-mouthed. The worse that could be said was he was a little curt with you but ] doesn't say you have to be sickeningly sweet with everyone you talk to. ---- ] 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? ] (]) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? ] (]) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". ]] 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' ]? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word ''bullshit'', which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills"]] seems pretty temperate. And so on. ] &#124; ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).


:I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at ] where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. ] (]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think it's not any one thing but all things taken in consideration. I hadn't seen much of his behaviour until recently, but his editing at ] and ] (a reasonable representation since wannabekate says they're his two most edited) as well as a recent discussion at ], and together with the userboxes on his talk page and his edits to Islam-related topics, suggests someone who is not likely any time soon to be able to edit within Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on a consistent or meaningful basis. He frequently calls for people to be banned, desysopped (eg ]) etc merely for disagreeing with him - yet stridently defends those on his side of the POV fence (witness ]) when they inevitably cop a block for their actions. ] and are also interesting reads for sheer non-]. ] 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - ] (]) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would have expected that after 3 days of discussing this, everyone would at least try to be civil, but incivility continues on the ] page.--] 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


Hob Gadling failing to yield to ], apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. ] (]) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Sigh! I share the frustrations of Lester and others. Prester John and I recently came to an ] over dissatisfaction with each other's language and edit actions. To see that he has gone to other articles and talkpages, continuing with exactly the same tone and language that he well knows, by now, is uncivil doesn't reassure me that his apology mean't anything other than to avoid collecting yet another critic of his aggressive negative behaviour. Closer scrutiny from admin users would be greatly appreciated. --''']''' <span style="font-size:80%">] ]</span> 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


:Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. ] (]) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Note:''' For ] respondants, see which relates to this discussion somewhat. Having been on the opposite side of content disputes with PJ, I'm not going to answer the ticket or take any action in this discussion, but if anyone wants to (and has access to OTRS) then that link may be of interest. Cheers, ''']''' 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Propose''' serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at ]. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) ] (]) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. ] (]) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Recuse{{smiley}} Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to ] above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. ] (]) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


*As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of PJ's attitude, outing another editor is unacceptable. This ANI is starting to turn into a bit of a witchhunt. I agree with the warning given to Timeshift. Outing any editor is just unacceptable. Just because PJ may have an attitude problem and/or edit wars, doesn't mean that he can be outed. If there are geniune problems with PJ, this should be start of a new AN/I or taken to a more appropriate forum. '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
*:Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. ] (]) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
: This AN/I has moved on from the Timeshift issue - that was resolved 2 days ago when he received a warning. There is no indication that he has been "outed" - the allegations are old and have been repeated on other occasions over past months, although I'm not entirely sure from where they originated - i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not. That being said, we're on Misplaced Pages, and the key issue here is on-wiki behaviour which is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. ] 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
*::Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::In the 3 days since the warning, 'Prester John' has taunted on the David Hicks talk page, harassed on Brendan's talk page, and been generally uncivil in numerous places. Now he's launched some kind of Misplaced Pages campaign called ''''FREE MATT''''. He's made a new Userbox for it here-> ]. It seems to me to be some kind of campaign to whip up dissent in support of a comrade who was recently blocked from Misplaced Pages. He's sent the Userbox to numerous peoples' talk pages. Judging by the reaction on ], some other Wikipedians have objected to being sent these campaign messages. --] 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Extended discussion}}
:::No, an admin has decided it is his business to interfere in that. No one has complained. ] 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
{{od}}
Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. ] (]) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::What is the status of this section? ] 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things {{tq|bullshit}} and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is ]. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 ] + ] debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a ], that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "{{!tq|fuckin' wanker}}" because they botched a ]. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::When ] shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells ] that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. ] (]) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? ] (]) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::So, to recap, ]: It's not ''what'' it is said that causes problems, it's '''''how''''' it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to ]. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions {{tq|bullshit}} is not the right thing to do. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. ] (]) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Eh, you can say "That's ] and ] and does not constitute ] as the subject is discussed in ]". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their ] and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work ''isn't'' shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience.
:::::::::This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. ] (]) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who {{tq|herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest}}<ref> Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/</ref> This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400</ref> ] (]) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing ] misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as ], and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as ]. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It was closed. Orderinchaos then removed the "resolved tag" and ethically forgot to inform me, allowing all and sundry to have a nice little gripe about me without giving me the chance to respond. Not that there is much to respond to. Do I respond to the ] ip sock that is upset I reverted his changes to my userpage? Do I respond to Orderinchaos who erred in not informing me of his unilateral decision to reopen this case? His misrepresentation that I called for the desyoping of Hesperian because I "disagreed" with him. (I in fact was calling for an apology for calling me a racist. There was no apology so I question his constitution for adminship). Do I address his absurd insinuation that because the "allegations" of my outing have been repeated over the past few months, that "I" somehow raised it myself? Do I address the nonsense of serial edit warmonger Lester2 who would do anything to get me blocked just so he could continue his ] violating POV pushing slandering of current Australian politicians? Or shall I just wait to see how this hatchet job turns out? ] <sup> -(])</sup> 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


:Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. ] (]) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:huh? you complain about someone not going out of their way to give you the opportunity to respond and then sarcastically outline that you are not going to respond... very odd PJ. You're editing across the board is becoming more and more counterproductive to the writing of a good encyclopaedia and the encouragement of people to contribute in good faith. ]]] 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


:*I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) {{tq|bullshit}} to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that ''that'' was what led Lardlewarmers to try and , a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward ] situation. --] (]) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
: Incidentally I removed the resolved tag ''after'' most of the discussion above - merely because it seemed to no longer correctly describe the route that the discussion had taken. It was more an acknowledgement of events on the ground, as it would have been puzzling to some that an ongoing discussion had a "resolved" tag on it. Also, the "allegations" bit has been misunderstood - a claim was made about your real-world identity, and I had no wish to repeat the claim. My argument on that was only that one is only "outed" if the claim is true, and as the claim has not been established as either true nor false, it remains an allegation. (I would also argue that even if true, more info would have needed to be released to qualify.) That being said, I strongly agree with the warning - that is not the level at which we should be conducting debates on Misplaced Pages. ] 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:*:There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "]" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to ] and stop treating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a ''chronic'' and ''ongoing'' habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (]) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. ] (]) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed ''I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type''. As the Alien above said, you '''{{tq|Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.}}''' now ]. ]&thinsp;] 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to ], the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the ] contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ], as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the ''content'', not attacking the person (]). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.] (]) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::For the record I do ''agree with you'' that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been ] you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing ] or ], rather we depend on ] and ] to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to {{tq|steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person}}. However, that is not what I read in that . Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! ]&thinsp;] 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (]) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.] (]) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. ]&thinsp;] 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a {{tq|lesser offense}}. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, you have not addressed why you removed the resolved tag, and then failed to inform the party concerned. Does this sound like the actions of an ethical adminstrator? Also, what was the point of speculating where the origin of the outing allegations came from; ''"i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not"''? Did you have any evidence at all for this random slander, or were you just "throwing it out there". I would question whether that is admin behaviour as well. ] <sup> -(])</sup> 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:stop trying to distract the conversation with wordplay. You sound so offended anyone could have thought that you were a model wikicitizen! Cheers, ]]] 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


:Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. ] (]) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
and on the theme of PJ being a model wikicitizen, BigHaz has suggested I bring up my latest issue here:
::It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of ''this specific'' pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. ] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::What you are describing is a different idea: ]. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. {{tq|the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]}} {{tq|The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.}}(]) ] (]) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. ] (]) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Beyond what @] said, ''for all parties'', it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil ]. ]&thinsp;] 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Indeed. ] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should ''not'' be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. ] (]) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from ] or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - ] (]) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. ] (]) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I am in the diffs.
:::::I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - ] (]) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: {{tq|Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.}}] ] (]) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. ] (]) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Extended discussion}}
:::::How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See ], also please see ] if you logged out just to make {{tq|problematic edits}} here.... ]&thinsp;] 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@]: Okay let me say it another way...
:::::::* never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed.
:::::::* since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted.
:::::::* in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds.
:::::::* when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history.
:::::::But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @] has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . ]&thinsp;] 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. ] (]) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a ''serious allegation'', yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? ''However, '''if''' you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry.'' (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) ]&thinsp;] 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits.
::::::::Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. ]&thinsp;] 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. ]&thinsp;] 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. ] (]) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of {{tq|I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times}} by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. ]&thinsp;] 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Please read ]. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. ] (]) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. ]&thinsp;] 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. ] (]) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


{{reflist}}
I just came across ] where the editor in question has used the edit history of my user talk page in order to identify the IP address of an editor with whom he is in dispute. This and many other links are under the seemingly devious title of "Evidence" (I refer to link 1 under the heading 1 x).


===Send to AE?===
This editor (PJ) himself seems to have successfully enforced a gag order on Timeshift to prevent him from revealing what is apparently a huge conflict of interest of PJ's when editing Australian political articles. My impression from previous conversations is that PJ is a former Australian parliamentarian who edits on wikipedia for purely partisan purposes and Timeshift had proof of this but has been blocked by admins from using it in discussions because PJ has chosen not to volunteer his identify on wikipedia. Yet despite being the beneficiary of this policy of anonymity, this editor is using a dossier type technique in order to formulate an attack on another editor based on underhanded research such as researching the editor's IP address.


Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to ] since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It must be against policy to do this kind of thing, probably the same policy PJ is using against Timeshift. Don’t wikipedia editors have a right to edit in peace without being researched by editors with which you are supposedly having content based disputes? ]]] 07:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
: Can't comment on what's happening here, but in an unrelated case, a page of this nature by an editor involved in a content dispute with others was successfully MfD'd as a misuse of userspace. ] 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


:Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
===Free Matt userbox MfD===
:That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - ] (]) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I saw that via the Jehochman RFA, and nominated it for deletion. ]. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#C00000">]</font></span> 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: I added a notification of this but it was removed by ]. I am re-adding it here, as it is directly relevant to the harassment of Elonka and Jehochman. the Userbox appears to be a response to where this user is blocked for harassment. Two other userboxes this person made before were deleted for being inflammatory: ] & ]. More are located at ]. If it's significant, this happened a long time after I posted it and he left me note about that removal. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#C00000">]</font></span> 05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Religious Hatred:''' Those prior Prester John userboxes that Admins deleted in May, were the cause of religious flamewars among Wikipedians. See ] for one case of a Wikipedian who tried to retaliate after being baited by Prester John. I see a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance from Prester John. ] involving complaints about Prester John's anti-Muslim edits. Yet the anti-Muslim theme still continues with Prester John's Misplaced Pages activity. Just skim down Prester's edit history and you'll see that 95% of his edits involve articles about Muslims. You'll notice Prester John editing articles to cast Muslims in a poor light, or praise politicians who have taken a perceived anti-Muslim stance. Even as this current ANi has been taking place in the past few days, let me point out Prester's , and the ] will explain what's wrong with it. I ask the admins to look at whether this sort of slant is good for Misplaced Pages. --] 13:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::::FYI ] is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. ] (]) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Please back up claims of "religious hatred" with specific evidence in the form of diffs. Your post borders on ] and ]. ] 03:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
:::Even though I voted to remove the user box (and, it was intended more as a "probably not the best idea" rather than "delete now, no matter what"), the "Free Matt57" box controversy is getting a whole lot more attention than it deserves. I say we move on. If there are other issues (which you seem to be talking about) then they need to be addressed properly - not here tacked on to the ultimately pointless "Free Matt" user box issue. The whole idea of user boxes is a joke anyway, hence i keep mine to an absolute minimum - just the projects, and no politics. --] 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I think it should get a lot more attention. It demonstrates that some admins think that admins' actions should not be disputed by non-admins. That is a very worrying attitude. ] 03:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC) :::::It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - ] (]) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Since I blocked Matt, I suppose I should record that I don't object to the userbox and I certainly don't feel offended in any way. Its fair comment imo. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
===edit point===
:I think the following quote is problematic. It is from ].
{{cquote|The Great Seal of the United States. Note how the Eagle holds an olive branch and 13 arrows. This symbolises how the USA will give a choice between War or Peace. YOU do get to pick, but always remember, that whichever way you choose, it is going to be done OUR way}}
:Of course I am not going to contradict the statement with examples from history and current events... Not because I can't but because that isn't the point of userpages or this page...
:--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::If you're going to try to attack someone, you'll have to explain yourself a little better. How is it problematic, exactly? ] 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::What exactly is problematic about it? '''] ]''' 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
:::This isn't an attack. For it to be an attack there needs to be war. I am merely exercising "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community" from ]. How does that statement helps us write better articles? How is it in line with ]? Isn't it provocative? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 09:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I am still waiting for an answer. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
We're waiting for you to clarify what the problem with it is. ] <sup> -(])</sup> 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


:As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. ] (]) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
===Edit Wars continue===
::While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why ] is policy.
I wish ] would stop conducting edit wars as his first option, and use the talk pages instead. Right now he is edit waring on the ] article. Currently up to 3 reverts:
::Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. ]. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*
::Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. ] (]) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* added text: "As a result of prudent financial management"
:I '''second''' to motion to bring this to ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* added text: "The strength of the Australian economy"
* subtracted text" "The Hawke/Keating government had inherited part of this debt" (from John Howard)
(All edits involve either adding glowing praise about the economics of John Howard, or removing criticism of John Howard economics)<br />
Yes, 3 reverts fits within the general 3RR rule, but in Prester John's case, it breaks the spirit of previous blocks, and previous administrator warnings against edit waring:
*'''05:47, 13 August 2007''' Prester John was blocked for an edit war on the same ] article. ()
*'''04:59, 16 September 2007''', Prester John was blocked again for conducting an edit war on the ] article. ]
*'''02:38, 17 September 2007''', Admin ] issued Prester John this stern warning -> ], and told Prester John that ''"Being disruptive is being blockable, please discuss rather then revert."''
Since then, Prester John has shown complete disregard for the previous Admin advice, and has been continuously reverting without discussing. In the current edit war over John Howard and the economy, there is an active community discussion about that very subject here -> ]. Despite Prester John's revert war, unfortunately he has refused to join the community discussion on the subject he is reverting.--''']''' 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::Does anyone see this dude making any sense? He constantly makes these long winded false accusations on this notice board about general editing procedures. Sure check out the diffs he is talking about. See the use of edit summaries. See how the discussion on the talk page he refers to is about a totally different issue. Check his recent edits and decide if he is stalking me or not. See if he didn't already post this a couple of paragraphs above. ] <sup> -(])</sup> 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


== Edit warring to prevent an RFC ==
:::Considering previous Admin warnings to Prester John to avoid edit wars (not just 3RR) it's surprising that Prester John considers this a false accusation that he is involved in an edit war. The (above) diffs all relate to reverts Prester John has been engaged in, and all are on the subject of John Howard's economics. This revert war has been going on since September ().
@] has removed an RFC tag from ] now within .


] provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list.
:::So that's at least 2 weeks of reverting others edits on that subject, while an active discussion was also ongoing for 2 weeks without Prester John's participation. This is completely disruptive editing, because the editors that have been involved in that discussion feel their time is wasted when Prester John romps in and reverts the content without bothering with the discussion page, despite being warned against this behaviour previously.


We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an ] problem or a ] that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm ''not'' saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in ''some'' cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute.
:::It's important that the administrators stop Prester John's edit war, as those who are engaged in discussion won't feel they need to join the edit war as the only means to counter Prester John. As Prester John pointed out, I mentioned this before, yes, but unfortunately the reverts just continue, and the diffs at the top of this section are only those from the last 24 hours.


I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the ]. See you tomorrow. ] (]) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I ask administrators to look at the previous ANi against Prester John for edit waring (linked above, 16 September). Read the comments from the other admins who warned Prester for edit waring on 'John Howard', 'David Hicks' and 'List of notable converts to Islam' articles. In the previous report, Administrators commented with despair that warnings and blocks were not enough to discourage Prester John from edit waring.--''']''' 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


:As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC.
::::Interestingly, the particlar edit was OR with no cite and was reverted by myself and at least one other editor, other than PJ. I note that two other editors also reworded it to it's present state only to have Aussieboy revert it (twice). I think PJ isn't at fault with this particular example as he is doing what we should do here at Misplaced Pages. If there is an editor at fault, it is the one including uncited OR. '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith.
:The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. ] (]) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. ] (]) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Axad12}}, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have ''absolutely no'' conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. ] (]) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Axad12}}, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. {{u|WhatamIdoing}}, a {{tl|trout}} for ]ing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template.
::::The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. ] (]) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be ''falsely accused'' of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that {{tpq|exceptionally serious abuse}}? ] (]) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request.
:I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request).
:As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. ] (]) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? ] (]) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content.
:::Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. ] (]) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"Asking a second time" is not ]. ] (]) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. ] (]) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the ]. See, e.g., {{xt|An editor ''gaming the system'' is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support.}} Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy.
::::::I also direct your attention to the item that says {{xt|Gaming the system may include...]ing the consensus-building process}}. ] (]) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to ], which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. ] (]) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not {{tq|highly misleading}}.
:::I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. ] (]) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? ] (]) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. ] (]) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved.
::I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. ] (]) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when ] can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one ] book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer.
:::But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my ] experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. ] (]) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself.
::::It isn't really relevant here but actually I ''didn't'' expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. ] (]) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


*On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor ] with {{u|Graywalls}}, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article.
:::::It's very gallant of ] to show support for Prester John's side of the edit war, however, it should be noted that Shot info's first edit to the ] section was in the past few hours--''']''' 05:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue.
::::::Not supporting PJ, just pointing out the ] rather than your take on it. And???????? So what if my first edit to this section was in the last few hours. That would just be similar to your edit history in ], would it not? I note that you seem to be defending the recent addition of OR material with no cite, and using PJs removal of it as some sort of action against PJ. This is most odd, telling an editor not to do what we are supposed to do. '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (]) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative.
:::::::I'm not defending any side in this. But what we have is an edit war going on, and it renders the discussion page completely useless when other editors engage in a revert war without discussing. Regarding the issue of references, if you read my ongoing entries in the discussion page, you'd see that I considered none of the references added by either side to be satisfactory. So for either side to use references as an excuse to edit war is unsatisfactory. Follow ] and stop edit waring! --''']''' 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


'''Proposal''': Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and ], Axad12 and Graywalls should be ] from the Breyers article and its talk page.
::::::::<koff> "It's important that the administrators stop Prester John's edit war" versus "I'm not defending any side in this.". Uh-huh. So what is the purpose of this AN/I again...? If you are serious about the "edit war" you will stop the edit warrior. Who I note you have made mention on this discussion on his talk page...without asking him to stop his warring. So could you explain to the viewers here, why you are bringing PJ's edits to light, while condoning AussieBoy's? Surely you're not trying to make a mockery out of this noticeboard? '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


*<s>'''Support'''</s>. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I ''did'' ask Prester John to refrain from edit waring on the John Howard article in September () but he deleted my message and called me a troll, so I don't think he responds to warnings. This is why it requires admin help to shut the war down. Now we have new people being drawn into the edit war, some of whom haven't been known to engage in that before, so possibly some warnings may be appropriate for new-comers who revert without discussing. In Prester's case, apart from the numerous previous ANi's, blocks and warnings about edit wars, the community Talk page on Howard Economics was started in September specifically to discuss what he was reverting back then, and still is reverting.--''']''' 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:Strike as withdrawn for Axad12 ABAN to concur with {{u|Cullen328}} and the ''oppose'' decisions below.
::{{u|Graywalls}} is a separate case remaining undecided here. Over the 2024 article and talk page history at Breyers, this user was the main purveyor of disinformation, and has not acknowledged his talk page hostility and errors of judgment, despite abundant presentation of facts, sources, explanations, and challenges for information below. Graywalls should commit to abstain from editing the Breyers article for a given period, as Axad has done. ] (]) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Zefr}}, your domineering and territoriality to that article is a big part of escalation and if anyone, it should be you who should refrain from it. Blatantly disregarding consensus and going so far as saying {{tq|Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus.|tq}} as done in which goes to show you feel you're above consensus. You weren't persuaded until you were corrected by two administrors {{u|Aoidh}} and {{u|Philknight}} on the matter on the belief you're entitled to insert certain things against consensus. You also were blocked for the fifth time for edit warring in that article, with previous ones being at different articles with dispute with other editors, which shows your lack of respect for community decision making. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, your concept of what was a false consensus has been dismissed by the RfC result, so you should move on from this bitterness and distortion of truth. In reply to Aoidh and Philknight at the Breyers talk page, I stated in my next comment, ''"Yes, a key word <u>unintentionally omitted</u> in my response concerning statements and sources was "verifiable".'' As there are few watchers/editors of the Breyers article (62 as of today, probably many from Unilever who do not edit), I provided statements of facts verified by reliable sources, whereas this simple practice appears to not be in your editing toolkit.
:::The obligation remaining with you in this discussion is to respond to below in the section, '''The actual content that led to this dispute.''' Let's have your response to that, and your pledge to abstain from editing the Breyers article - you did say on the talk page on 29 Nov that you would "delegate the actual editing to someone else." I think your defiance to respond to challenges in this discussion section affirms my recommendation that you are ABANNED from the Breyers article and IBANNED from attacking me because you are unable to face the facts. ] (]) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It was a suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, ] approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? ] (]) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You had already been notified of the problem you caused at the Breyers article Now, you are engaged in to avoid answering the Cullen328 paragraphs and the several requests for you to explain and own up to your disruptive behavior and non-collaboration. Regarding OWN, there are few editors at Breyers. I countered your attempts to slander the article with the "antifreeze" term and bogus diet book references by applying verifiable facts and sources.
:::::OWN:''"Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. This too does not equal ownership, provided it does not marginalise the valid opinions of others and is adequately justified."'' If you had offered valid content and sources, I would have collaborated.
:::::I'm sure editors have seen enough of your personal grievances expressed here. Please stop. I'm not returning unless an exception occurs. ] (]) 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Oppose''': I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard.
*:I have not {{tq|ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate}}, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them.
*:Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024.
*:I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make.
*:Also, the idea that I made a {{tq|hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC}} is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect.
*:I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time.
*:Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at ], but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. ] (]) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. , because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see ] for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling ]. {{re|Aoidh}} also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see ] ] (]) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
See how difficult this is Shot? He can't even recognise the point you are making. He is so blinded by hatred for me he can't see anything else. He doesn't even see Aussieboys constant additions. He just can't see multiple editors removing Aussieboys unreferenced original research. He just sees me editing and feels the need to file a bogus complaint somewhere, or write the same complaint again and again and again with slightly different wording. ] <sup> -(])</sup> 00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*:Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. ] (]) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus.
*::My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Misplaced Pages articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the ''new'' consensus.
*::My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC.
*::I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). ] (]) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::* The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question?
*::Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by - see comments about this book in the RfC): {{tq|what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.}}
*::
*::Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting ), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 , after That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article.
*::The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of ]: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and {{u|NutmegCoffeeTea}}, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) , which appears to be <u>willfully ignored</u> by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by , resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to .
*::Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of ] for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. ] (]) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve.
*:::Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus.
*:::You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. ] (]) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of ''months'' to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating ] content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as ] for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of ]/] or in pursuit of COI purification. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus.
*:I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was ''at that time'' no consensus in favour of exclusion.
*:It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it.
*:My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed ''should be'') reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@], you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See ] for an explanation of why. ] (]) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{re|Rhododendrites}}, the antifreeze matter is ] since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin {{u|Daniel Case}} who determined it to be content dispute ]. Zefr inferring alleging I was <s>"uncooperative"</s> <u>not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping</u> in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. <u>There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate.</u> I'll see if {{re|Robert McClenon}} would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute.
*:https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted ] (]) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC))
*::For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below.
*::"Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months.
*::It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: ''"A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."''
*::Here's your chance to tell everyone:
*::Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. ] (]) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. ] (]) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


===A Non-Mediator's Statement===
How on earth do simple facts (whether well-referenced or not) become "original research"? The reference I gave establishes that the Australian Government debt in 1996 was way under half the OECD average. There is no "original research" there. It is also true that the Hawke/Keating Government "inherited" debt from the previous government. I am happy to provide a reference for this. ] 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure why ] has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute".


I closed the ] thread, ], on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word ] and of the mention of ]. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of ] what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a ] dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether ] is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was.
:If you are happy to provide the reference, then why have you not done show when your edit was removed because it was uncited and looks a lot like ] (but without a cite, who can be sure, and per ] it was deleted). This was pointed out to you but rather than add the source, you just readded your your original edit with the oddball summary "adding balance" (para.). Feel free to improve the article by citing contentious information in a ], otherwise unfortunately policy ''tells'' us to remove your edits. '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::As stated in the discussion page, the issue claimed by each side that the other's references are no good is not a valid reason to enter the revert war. Reverts should only be used in cases of obvious vandalism. Modification and discussion are what should be used.--''']''' 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that ] edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about ]. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
'''REVERT WAR ESCALATES:''' Please, Administrators, do whatever it takes to shut down this revert war. Others are now joining in. The thing just escalates if it is not stopped. See , and the ] discussion about the economics content that is being reverted. Everyone stays within their "allocated" 3 reverts, but that's not a good way for Misplaced Pages to operate.--''']''' 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:It would be better if the reverters on all "sides" stopped reverting, took a '''deep breath''', and took a more concillatory approach. Pages ''should'' not have to be locked down. --] 05:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


:{{re|Robert McClenon}}, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. ] (]) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Anybody would think that with Lester's additions of contentious material into a BLP, he is intentionally fanning the edit war flames, just to create a nice long stream of reverts to come here and ]. Of course, if he discussed the merits of his proposed edits first, sought consensus, discussed the appropriateness of RS' (you know, what we ''do'' here at Misplaced Pages) then his edits wouldn't need to be reverted. Curiously he knows this, which is why he warns other editors not to remove his poorly sourced contentious material as “the admins are watching”. '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here?
::I said you were <u>non-collaborative</u>, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: ''"refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."''
::You were notified about the , and you posted a general notice about it on the , so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits,
::You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic
::I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, . cc: {{u|Robert McClenon}}. ] (]) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{re|Zefr}}, As been said to you by others, participation is not mandatory. Other editors are not required to and you shouldn't reasonably expect them to prioritize their real life schedule or their Misplaced Pages time on dispute that you runs on your own schedule to your DRN you started around your own schedule on your own terms. I have initially waited to give others time to comment as their time allows. I'm also not particularly fond of your berating, incivil, bad faith assuming comments directed at myself, as well as a few other editors and it's exhausting discussing with you, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to give your matters priority in my Misplaced Pages time. ] (]) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
====A Possibly Requested Detail====
Okay. If the question is specifically whether ] was uncooperative at ], then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between ] and ], and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN.
] (]) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Okay. ] is making a slightly different statement, that ] did not ] at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. ] (]) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it ]. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. ] (]) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
===The actual content that led to this dispute===
Two month ago, ] included this shockingly bad content: {{tpq|As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop.}} The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a ] food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called ''Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love!'' written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have ''no right whatsover'' to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations ''per se'', but I am an advocate for corporations being treated ] like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. ] (]) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, {{u|Graywalls}} and {{u|Axad12}} were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, {{u|Axad12}} tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by {{u|Graywalls}}. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. ] (]) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Cullen,
:As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not {{tq|concoct}} that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material.
:I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not {{tq|dug in heels}} or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged in {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end}}.
:Similarly I do not hold the view that {{tq|any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association}}, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me very {{tq|evil}} indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me.
:I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour.
:Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC {{tq|over and over and over again}}. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated that {{tq|From my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes}}. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. ] (]) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , {{u|Axad12}}, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. ] (]) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to be {{tq|evil}}?
:::To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus.
:::I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see {{tq|anti-corporate diatribes}} or evidence that I {{tq|obviously dislike}} Breyers or Unilever.
:::Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. ] (]) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As I said, {{u|Axad12}}, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to ] to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. ] (]) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion.
:::::Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist.
:::::I have never stated or implied that {{tq|a corporation does not deserve neutrality}} and nor do I hold such a view.
:::::I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds.
:::::I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been {{tq|determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content}} then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. ] (]) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your {{tq|motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time}}. You are also obligated to ''actually'' look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion.]] 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That's a very fair question.
:::::::The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for).
:::::::User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there.
:::::::I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard.
:::::::However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. ] (]) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been.]] 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, I entirely accept that.
:::::::::For clarity, when I said {{tq|my understanding of policy at the time}} I meant ''my understanding of policy'' at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits.
:::::::::What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. ] (]) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — ] (]) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material.
:::::::::::Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive.
:::::::::::So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded.
:::::::::::I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. ] (]) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. ] (]) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: ''I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus''. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? ]&thinsp;] 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article.
:::::::::::::I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question.
:::::::::::::I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards.
:::::::::::::Hopefully this clarifies... ] (]) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've been expecting something to happen around ], whom I ran into several months ago during a ]. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be ''clerking the noticeboard'', making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex: {{tq|...the existence of COI seems quite clear...}} , {{tq|...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest...}} , {{tq|As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago.}} ) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether ] had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an ]). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. ] (]) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. ] (]) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think it would be a good idea for {{u|Axad12}} to take a break from ] and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. ] (]) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. ] (]) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given.
:::::If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent.
:::::That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally.
:::::All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. ] (]) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard ''is not the high achievement you might think it is''. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. ] (]) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes.
:::::::I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity.
:::::::I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. ] (]) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all ], but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at ]. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). ] (]) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::]? ] (]) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from to the makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the ''context'' of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird {{tq|In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream.}}, which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version ''so much''. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list - {{tq|Following similar practices by several of their competitors, Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others}}, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --] (]) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article.]] 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@], about this {{xt|And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources)}} – I don't know what other sources say, but the ''cited'' sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually ] a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::(As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at ] instead of here.) ] (]) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Aquillion|WhatamIdoing|Isaidnoway}} would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? ] (]) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. ] (]) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
====Thanks, and a Diddly Question====
I would like to thank ] for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for ]. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an {{tq|exceptionally serious abuse}} of the ] process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the ] content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? ] (]) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post .
:::All information I have added comes from major Australian broadsheet newspapers, and many other editors on the discussion page have agreed that the sources are reliable. As stated before, both sides accuse each other of having poor references, so the revert war continues. How will it stop? I agree with User:Merbabu (above) that all reverting by all sides should stop.--''']''' 10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I find your characterization of events inaccurate. "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here "
::But this was not a resubmission. was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of . Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content.
::We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. ] (]) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between ], ], and administrator ]. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and ] on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of ], but they show no direct evidence of ] editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of {{tq|exceptionally serious abuse}} that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. ] (]) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The paid editor is ] who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason ] where they pinged ] about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had ] about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). ] (]) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


===Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers===
::::It will stop when you learn to discuss edits that you '''know''' are going to be contentious on the talk page and gain consensus before making them. Looking at your contribution history, you repeatedly make a controversial edit and complain when it is reverted. While I can understand that this process is stimulating and enjoyable for you, I'm finding it tedious to continually have to check over your contributions and root out POV additions to political articles. --] 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
(Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that ] be ] from ] and ] for six months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. ] (]) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite ], an ] with Zefr, and a ] on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? ] (]) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards.
*:::As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. ] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on {{tq|q=y|pain of an indefinite site ban}}. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. ] (]) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. ] (]) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted.
*:::Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions.
*:::No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. ] (]) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Support''' as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. ] (]) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If people were sincere about respecting others' efforts, they would move the content to the talk page for discussion, rather than just deleting others' contributions and hovering over the article with the revert button. Discuss before reverting, otherwise it gets other contributors upset. Skyring (Pete) and Prester John not only reverted my cited information, but they also reverted numerous others who tried to contribute to the John Howard Economics section. The article's history page reveals all.--''']''' 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because {{u|Axad12}} seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. ] (]) 08:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. I also oppose Axad12's counter proposal. --] (]) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. I just don't see a need for such strict measures. ] (]) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the formal sanction, but I do support Axad12s voluntary sanction = {{tq|I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr ... I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking}}.]] 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


===Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN===
::::::You miss the point. Let me say it again. You make edits you '''know''' are controversial. You don't discuss them first. You then edit war and complain here when they are reverted with an edit summary saying "Please discuss."
Clerking at COIN seems to have given ] the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that ] be ] from ] for two months. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that {{tq|everyone whom don't know is probably a paid editor}}. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. ] (]) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because {{u|Axad12}} seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --] (]) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Given Cullen328's comment. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I would prefer it if Axad12's voluntary commitment was to stay away from ] rather than the company article in particular. It is very unhealthy, both for Misplaced Pages and for the particular user, for anything like a third of the edits on any noticeboard to be from any one user. ] (]) 15:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this is a good idea, and not vindictive. It will do Axad12 some good to get away from the COIN for awhile, and get out there and roam around Misplaced Pages and see where else they can contribute constructively.]] 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I think a formal ban is unnecessary. Axad has done a remarkably good job of articulating a positive response to this incident, and it's to his credit that he has reacted so constructively under such pressure.
*:I also think it's good for everyone to try something different on occasion. I think it's easier to walk away for a bit if you're sure that others will step up to fill your place. So with such proposals (not just this one), I'd love to see people saying not only that they support giving someone a break, but also that they'll try to step up to help out in that page/process/noticeboard for the length of a ban. It could be as little as checking in once a week or answering the easy questions. Who is willing to actually be supportive in practice? ] (]) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::People will fill the space. WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensible. ] (]) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It's only for two months, it's a good thing to get away and get a breath of fresh air, and yes, his response has been positive, but even he admits in the Breyer debacle, he was relying on other editor's opinions in evaluating the disputed content, so getting away from the COIN desk for a couple of months, and getting some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia will be beneficial, if and when, he returns to COIN.]] 22:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I don’t want to derail the voting process here, but a couple of points in relation to COIN…
*:::(Apologies for the length of this post but I feel the contents are relevant.)
*:::1) It has been observed elsewhere that “COIN has no teeth” (forgive me for the absence of a diff but I think it's a commonly acknowledged idea). I've discussed that issue at some length with ] and they've acknowledged that there is (in their opinion) insufficient admin oversight at COIN and that too many threads have historically gone unresolved without action being taken against promo-only accounts (etc).
*:::Star Mississippi has encouraged me to refer such cases to admins directly to ask them to intervene. I’ve been doing so over recent months and this has significantly improved positive resolutions on COIN threads.
*:::If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. Thus, while I acknowledge Whatamidoing’s earlier point about cross-training etc, and the points made by other users, there is an underlying unresolved issue re: admin oversight at COIN, which might also be resolved via some kind of rota or by a greater number of admins looking in from time to time.
*:::I’ve not consciously been clerking, and I certainly don’t aspire to be “the co-ordinator of COIN”, but there is something of a vacuum there. Consequently I’ve often posted along the lines of “Maybe refer this to RPPI?”, “Is there a notability issue here?”, etc. etc. in response to threads that have been opened.
*:::I absolutely accept 100% that, in terms of experience, I’m probably not the best person to be doing that – but I have the time to do it and I have the inclination, and in the absence of anybody else serving that role I’ve been happy to do it. But, as I say, really this is an underlying unresolved issue of others ''not'' having the time or inclination rather than an issue of me going out of my way to dominate. What I'd really like is if there were others sharing that task.
*:::2) Also I'm not really sure that the extent to which I perform that sort of role has any real link to me making assumptions about whether COI users have good or bad faith motivations. On the latter distinction I think it's fair to say that I'm usually (but admittedly not always) correct. There have also been occasions when others have been asking for action to be taken and I've been the voice who said "no, I think this is a good faith user who just needs some guidance on policy". I hope that I'm normally speaking fair in that regard.
*:::Most of the accounts who are taken to COIN are recent accounts who wrongly believe that Misplaced Pages is an extension of their social media. Most accounts who fall into that category are advised along those lines and they comply with policy or, sometimes, they just go away. Then there are the repeat customers who are often clearly operating in bad faith and where firmer action needs to be taken. I'm conscious of that distinction, which seems to me to be the single most important point when dealing with COIN cases. I've not been adopting some kind of hardline one-size-fits-all approach or characterising all COI activity as bad per se. However, more admin oversight at COIN would certainly be appreciated, if only so that there were a wider range of voices.
*:::Thus, in an ideal world I think I would continue to be allowed to operate at COIN, but as one of several regular contributors.
*:::Apologies for the length of this post but hopefully this is a useful and relevant contribution. Please feel free to hat this post if it is considered wildly off-topic. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea.]] 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::], all I can say is that if Misplaced Pages is looking for people with the time and motivation to dedicate to the project, and who are amenable to taking instruction, then here I am.
*:::::If I’ve been felt to be overly keen to contribute in a particular area then fair enough. I’m just not sure that a formal ban is the way to go about resolving that. ] (]) 05:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim - {{tq|If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there.}} I just don't believe that to be true, because as Phil Bridger points out - ''WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensable''.]] 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I really don't wish to argue, you've expressed your view and that's fine. However, the point of my long post above wasn't that "I am critical to COIN". The post was simply intended to highlight the fact that there are very few regular contributors at COIN and to express a hope that a wider range of contributors might get involved (following on from earlier related comments by Whatamidoing). That would be healthy all round, regardless of my situation.
*:::::::Also, when I've seen similar situations arise in the past, good faith (but over-active) users seem to usually be given the opportunity to voluntarily take steps to allay any community concerns, rather than being handed a formal ban. I'd just be grateful for a similar opportunity. ] (]) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Apologies for the delay. I cannot provide a diff either as I can't recall where we had the conversation but acknowledging that what @] attributed to me is correct. There are simple blocks that are sometimes needed, but there aren't as many eyes on COIN to action them. I believe I've found merit to any Axad reported directly to me and if there were any I didn't take action, it was due to bandwidth as my on wiki time has been somewhat limited over the last six months. As for the merit of this report, I am not able to read through it to assess the issue so it would not be fair of me to weigh in on any element thereof. ] ] 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I have read through this long, entire discussion. I'd just like to point out to Axad12 that, to me, it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be. I think it would be a mistake for you to think you only made mistakes regarding this one article and instead reconsider your approach to the entire COI area. Sometimes "the consensus" is not correct and can violate higher principles like NPOV and V.
:I'll just mention that the COI area has caused us to lose some invaluable editors, just superb and masterful editors who were on their way to becoming administrators. They devoted incredible amounts of time to this project. But their interest in rooting out COI and pursuing UPE caused them to completely lose perspective and think that they were a one-man/woman army and they took irresponsible shortcuts that led them to either leave the project voluntarily or be indefinitely blocked. It's like they fell down a rabbit hole where they began to think that the rules didn't apply to them because they had a "higher calling" of getting rid of COI. This lack of perspective caused us to lose some amazing editors, unfortunately, but ultimately they were damaging the project.
:You seem like an enthusiastic editor and I'd rather not see the same thing happen to you so I recommend you cut back on your time "clerking" COIN and just make this task one of a variety of areas you edit in instead of your primary activity. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Liz, thank you for your comments. I welcome your perspective and I'm not unaware of the dangers that you highlight.
::I think this is now day 5 of what has been a rather gruelling examination where I’ve co-operated to the very best of my ability. Most of the material under discussion has related to a series of regrettable misunderstandings where I’ve openly acknowledged my errors and would now like to move on.
::Therefore I’d be grateful if, following a period of reflection, I be given the latitude to continue my activities as I think best, taking on board ''all'' the very helpful advice that I’ve received from multiple users. At this moment in time I'm not sure exactly what that will look like going forwards, but it will involve a very significant (perhaps complete) reduction in my concentration on COI issues and much more time spent on improving articles in non-COI areas where I've previously contributed productively (e.g. detailed articles on specific chess openings).
::If I subsequently fall short of community expectations then by all means bring me back here with a view to imposing extreme sanctions. I do not think that that will end up being necessary.
::I have only the best of intentions but I must admit that I'm finding this prolonged process psychologically wearing. I therefore wondered if we might bring matters to a swift conclusion.
::I am genuinely very grateful for the thoughts of all who have contributed above.
::Kind regards, ] (]) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? ] (]) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. Sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. At times Axad12 can get too aggressive, and removing the RfC template was one of that. Other issues were also raised but unless these issues continues, formal sanctions are unlikely necessary. ] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' I haven't gone through the entire saga on the Breyers page, but for a while I was active in COI edit requests at the same time Axad12 was, and noticed their conistently very combatitive/aggressive approach towards any editor with a declared or suspected COI. I mentioned this to them and they said they had already stepped back from answering COI edit requests because of this, which I though at the time (and still do) showed a genuinely impressive amount of self-awareness. I rather burned out on the edit requests and came back a few months later to see the queue vastly decreased thanks in part ot Axad12's efforts, but also what seemed to me like very little improvement, if any, to the way they approach COI editors. I would regret to see Axad12 banned from this topic area, but I would like to see them approach it with somewhat more kindness. I would (regretfully) support sanctions if this kind of behaviour continued, but there's no need to jump to that now. ] (]) 03:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just a note to acknowledge the essential truth of ]'s description above of my activities. There have, however, also been examples where I've shown considerable kindness and patience to COI editors and assisted them in re-formulating requests in a way that conforms with the relevant policies.
::I've always seen activities at ] and activities dealing with COI edit requests as two rather different things (with the former involving primarily undeclared COI, and the latter involving declared COI). With the benefit of hindsight I accept that my exposure to the former probably coloured my approach to the latter in an unhelpful way and that being heavily active in both spheres simultaneously was not a good idea.
::I would happily undertake never to deal with a COI edit request ever again and I have no particular desire to continue my activities at COIN either. The extent to which it was unhealthy to be operating in both spheres areas is thus now effectively a moot point but I acknowledge that it was a factor in the matters under discussion here. ] (]) 05:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


==Complaint against ]==
::::::Looking at your contributions, it isn't easy to find an edit of yours that doesn't turn out to be hotly contested. It would be far less disruptive if you put up your intended edit for discussion first, get input from others and then find a consensus. Like, take your own advice, you know? --] 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = There is no merit to the report against GiantSnowman. There is a rough consensus against, or at the very least no consensus for action toward Footballnerd2007 based on the mentorship proposal put forth and accepted and no further action is needed here. ] ] 02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Notice|1=See ] below. |heading=This complaint has been withdrawn.}}
<s> Good Morning,


I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against ] for repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies on personal attacks (]) and casting aspersions (]) during a .
The substance of this AnI is not a content debate. Misplaced Pages editing policy is to ]. Lester does actively participate in talkpage discussion. Prester John inconsistently does, and on this occasion hardly did at all, except belatedly. What this is about, is the conduct of an editor who has the uncanny knack of skirting under the radar where other editors are punished for doing the same thing. Where is the consistency? I was blocked at the same time as Prester John previously for supposed disruptive editing on David Hicks, when I made two minor reverts on that article 5 days apart, in stark contrast to Prester John's massive, non-consensual, unexplained reverts, yet I was given the same 24hr block and was (at topic "Block for Disruption of David Hicks" on my usertalk) to discuss first, revert second. Why shouldn't the same standard be applied equally, including to Prester John? Why shouldn't continued infractions by editors who have been well and truly forewarned be treated just like others who have been disciplined for the same or lesser cause? --''']''' <span style="font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to:
* ] is again inexplicably ] (again followed by belated and inconsequential participation in the talkpage discussion) on ]. The were for facts that he had should be referenced. --''']''' <span style="font-size:80%">] ]</span> 03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


'''Casting aspersions without evidence:'''
== Recent editing by ] ==
* GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence.
* For instance, accusations of using ] to generate responses without concrete proof.
* Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle of ].


'''Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:'''
A few days ago I noticed an editor, PalestineRemembered, on a few articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His edits concerned me, as they did not seemed make the articles more neutral or more informative, but instead more according to what appeared to be PalestineRemebered personal point of view regarding the conflict: . Another thing that concerned me was that he was using the edit summaries for personal political comments and soapboxing:
* The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks:
* Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times.
* Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis.


'''Violation of ] and ]:'''
Due to these concerns I decided to take a closer look at his efforts and found them to be very concerning. Many of his edits were in clear violation of Misplaced Pages's policies regarding neutrality:
* Misplaced Pages encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment.


As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue.
* The '''Hebron Massacre''' refers to the of sixty-seven Jews (who "died of natural causes" in a violent mob riot?).
* - he removed information sourced by several reliable sources.


I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violating ] or ]. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior.
On the discussion pages he was soapboxing and made no secret of his personal opinions and intentions on the articles regarding the Israeli-palestinian conflict:


If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Misplaced Pages contributors.
*


Thank you for your time and consideration. </s>
*


] • ] ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
He also aggressively promoted the use of partisan websites such as jewsagainstzionism.com as sources on Misplaced Pages: "Defenders of Israel have huge problems with www.jewsagainstzionism.com because these folk are outraged that their faith is so horrendously abused. The fact they they're real practitioners of Judaism"


:The discussion I raised was at ], now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes.
Browsing some of his edits, I also noticed that PalestineRemembered has had a mentor for quite some time. However, as the above diffs makes it clear, this has failed to change his behavior into something that is even remotely acceptable. I therefore request that an admin now step in and ensure that PalestineRemembered do not continue his disruptive behavior and policy violations.
:In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion. ]] 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Pinging other editors who were involved in that ANI discussion or have posted concerns/advice on this user's talk page - {{ping|Liz|voorts|Folly Mox|Tiggerjay|Extraordinary Writ|Tarlby|The Bushranger|Thebiguglyalien|Cyberdog958}} - think that is everyone, apologies if not. ]] 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your speedy response. Now let other admins add their point of view. ] • ] ⚽ 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is a ''spectacularly'' bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit. ] 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. ] • ] ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*::] is worth reviewing. It may already be too late for you to withdraw your complaint, but it's probably worth an attempt. --] (]) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ec}}Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of using ] to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted. ] (]) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Again, this is mere conjecture. ] • ] ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted. ]] 12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, it's called people have eyes. Using LLMs this way is highly disrespectful and frankly disruptive. Boomerang block for ] seems appropriate. ] (]) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>(Responding to the ping, invovled)</small> My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago. ''However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used''. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstrating ] behavior by very peculiar / suspicious ] I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example of ] and failure to follow ] despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention. ]&thinsp;] 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::+1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Misplaced Pages, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. ] 12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* Retaliatory BS; this should be closed immediately. ] ] 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


=== CBAN proposal ===
As it is obvious from his discussion page and his extensive , which include no less than eight block from this year, for disruption, 3RR etc, he has already been warned extensively about soapboxing and biased and confrontational editing. -- ] 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
* I propose a ''']''' for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a ''significant'' number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive ] time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about ] and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --] (]) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:This looks like stirring for the sake of it, PalestineRemembered is well aware that his editors come under heavy scrutiny, take it to the article talk pages. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 09:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*:*'''Support''', obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. ]] 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whilst I don't agree with everything PR has done, it's a little unfair to criticise him for removing references to www.hebron.org.il (a settler website) but also for adding references from www.jewsagainstzionism.com. Several Israeli contributors have insisted on (and got away with) using partisan sources such as CAMERA in the same way that PR has referenced jewsagainstzionism, i.e. in cases where it is directly quoting people/documents. ] ]] 10:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
*:*:I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. ] • ] ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? ] 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. ]] 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::I'll respond to this in depth later today. ] • ] ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. ] • ] ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. ] (]) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::::I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. ] • ] ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. ] (]) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*{{ec}}<s>'''Support'''</s> - on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has ] by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to ]. They also ] to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded ]. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ''ChatGPT''" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. ]&nbsp;] 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ''Update'' - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. ]&nbsp;] 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. ] • ] ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? ]] 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. ] • ] ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:(another {{ec}} To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. ]&nbsp;] 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help.
*:*::My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged.
*:*::As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. ] • ] ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... ]] 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. ] • ] ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*<del>Support CBAN.</del> Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. ] (]) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|{{ins|edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.}}}}
*:*:FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. ] • ] ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. ]] 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. ] • ] ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. ]] 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::::Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. ] • ] ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::::Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. ]] 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::::::I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. ] • ] ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked ''specifically about Chat-GPT'', however multiple times you were ''specifically asked about the broad term of LLM''. Your current claim of, {{tq|never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT}}, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. ]&thinsp;] 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::'''Soft-struck''' prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. ]&thinsp;] 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:{{a note}} for ], just to inform you there is a ] that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. ] (]) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::{{rtp}} Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of ] combined with acceptance of mentorship by {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).{{pb}}{{Ping|Footballnerd2007}} I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. ] (]) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' as this behavior is clearly ]. </s>] (]) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. ] (]) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my ''guess'' is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--] (]) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also ]'s numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. ] (]) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about ] as we have do so, it might be worth ] the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nfitz - that is a nonsense, editors can and do edit my user drafts whenever they want. My issue was with them moving one into mainspace. ]] 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose:''' CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. ] 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' - A mentor has been provided. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support mentorship''' offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. ]&thinsp;] 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead.]] 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


===MENTOR proposal===
:::I don't see what CAMERA or POV of other editors have anything to do with this ANI, I did however see which makes me suggest that, together with all the rest of the evidence, perhaps this user should be topic banned. --] 14:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
{{quote|] commitments to uphold by ] for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: ].
::::::'partisan websites such as jewsagainstzionism' refers to a Haredi website which posted a translation (not impugned) of a talk given by an eyewitness survivor of the 1929 Hebron massacre. It is not a hate site, but is excluded, because the survivor showed not enmity against Arabs, notwithstanding the horror he witnessed, but charity whereas the person who removed it posted a document (equally valid as a document) from a site run by people who, on that site, call virtually all Palestinian Arabs, MPs in the Knesset, Palestinian officials, 'terrorists', and even accuse Netanyahu of supplying superior weaponry to the eternal enemies of Eretz Israel. I think either both sources are acceptable, or neither. But, as has occurred to date, to have PR challenged for citing a Haredi source while allowing PR's adversary a free run with the mirror site's material is hardly an instance of neutrality. ] 21:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Actually there's no evidence the jewsagainstzionism website is a Haredi website, please see ] for past discussion demonstrating that it is a personal anonymous website that has nothing verifiable to link it to any organization, Jewish or otherwise. It fails as a reliable source and should be removed if any editor is indeed trying to use it as a Misplaced Pages reference. --] 03:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: Please note that 2 Hareidi users have already declared it as a hareidy website and evidence to it is on its web page; they only quote from Hareidi Rabbis what else of evidence can persuade somebody that this is more Hareidi?--] 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::OKay. The contested site simply repastes what can be found on Neturei Karta International. Jews United against Zionism,' associated with Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, an Haredi Jew = http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/KaplanInterview.cfm. What's the problem now? PR has simply got the wrong site for the right cite.] 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


# Abide by all policies and guidelines and ] to advise given to you by other editors.
::::] is a complete waste of space and I would hope that PR requests {{tl|db-author}} asap. ] ]] 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
# No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor.
:::::I have speedied the article as pov-pushing, an attempt to prove a point and a neologism with no assertion of notability. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
# No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it.
::::::My apologies for having created something that appears not to exist anywhere other than the over-creative imagination of one Wikipedian editor. Perhaps I should recreate "Hated Google Test" as a significant part of ], along the lines of (but perhaps more important than) ] or ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
# No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness.
:::::::Are you aware of the existence of ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
# Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor.
::::::::Yes, I am (and was). ] says ''"Raw hit count is a very crude measure of importance"'' and then some other stuff explaining why hit count must not be depended on. Maybe someone has a better example than I thought of, but it won't be easy to find any evidence this clear-cut that could go into an essay aspiring to become a guideline. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
# Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism.
The above comment by Karl Meier is largely consistent with what was described at ]. That RfArb was closed early with no further actions taken, "as the dispute being arbitrated has been satisfactorily resolved by the major parties." It might not be such a bad idea to reopen the RfArb. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
}}


This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. ] (]) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Where the allegations here are true, they are minor and not actionable, and where they are serious and actionable they are false. Going point-by-point:
:*PR absolutely did not allege that the Hebron victims "died of natural causes"; indeed, in ''the very diff you have linked'', PR stated that '"Killed in mob violence" or "died in riots" are correct, "mass-murder" is not.' His argument, which one can agree or disagree with, was apparently that "mass murder" implies a level of systematic intent which may not have existed in this case. Nothing to see here.
::** '''indent comment (by Jaakobou)''' - you were not involved on the ] article, and the sources linked ''clearly <u>do</u> show intent''. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:*The first reference is not in any way reliable; it is the website of the Hebron settlers, a tiny extremist group of radical Jews who occupy the center of Hebron along with a huge number of IDF soldiers and Israeli police. They are widely treated as such in world media, including centrist-conservative Israeli newspapers. See , , , , etc etc etc. The second reference, while seemingly reliable, says that ''one'' Palestinian policeman joining in the melée, while the article contradicted it.
::** '''indent comment (by Jaakobou)''' - you were not involved on the ] article: the website represents the Jewish <u>municipality</u> of Hebron and it links to <u>a History book requested by ]</u> (i made a phone call to validate the source). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


:I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! ] • ] ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::] is an Unreliable Source for this, and his challenges to ]'s good summary of the specific points contested are specious. I was there. Don't take my word for it though. There is a long discussion on this, and it is still under discussion, by those interested, on the talk page. Any attempt to deprive PR of a voice in that discussion will only stack the vote, not against PR, but against the problem raised. I support PR's continued presence here, as I do not oppose ]'s though he demonstrably culls his material from a website run by a hate group (I can supply the evidence from their own website if required), that of Kiryat Arba, which is amply cited on pages not related to Kiryat Arba.] 10:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::], this assuming bad faith is exactly the reason i initially refused to translate the hebrew page for you. this and the '''''lowering down the death toll''''' from 67 to 59 even <u>after</u> i noted that the discrepancy is because 59 died immediately and 8 more died from their wounds in the hospital later. I was at first <u>only a tad angered</u> by your explanation that gilbert must be right because ''"Martin Gilbert is Jewish,"'' and noted to you that (1) it doesn't matter that he's jewish, and (2) that this could be because of selective reading (something you denied at the time), but what clinched it for me was that you actually did later admit that it is a case of . btw, i must thank you for that swift attempt at character assassination.
:::Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. ] (]) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::p.s. you've forgotten to address that you did in fact requested the book be inserted, and also assumed that i have not validated that the source is reliable. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. ]] 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. ] (]) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No bad - let me rephrase if that helps. I am not opposed to mentoring in place of the current CBAN proposal. ]] 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


====Discussion====
:Those are your serious actionable claims, which ring hollow. Your other claims are true but irrelevant; PR should try to keep his opinions to himself when they don't directly relate to improving the article, but such statements are hardly a serious disruption, let alone one worthy of administrator intervention. Furthermore, one of your examples is a semi-private discussion in his own user-space - who cares?
*Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editor ''could be'' a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally there ''should be'' relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as a ], if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles. ] (]) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Finally, you report the blocks, but ignore the context. Three of those blocks were completely erroneous; PR was ''falsely accused'' of copying citations from a neo-Nazi group; he in fact cited a newspaper article which he hadn't read, instead of citing a credible scholarly book which he had read, and which cited the newspaper article accurately. Subsequently ] called him out as a Nazi sympathizer without any evidence, and a "lynch mob" atmosphere almost prevailed until PR proved beyond any doubt that his source was not the neo-Nazis. Prior to that, Jayjg blocked him for making ''an on-topic editorial comment'' , to the effect that prominently labeling Israeli politicans by ethnic or sectarian identity was "harmful in society and ... damaging to the project." And most recently, we have a 3RR block which was ''overturned'' as an ambiguous situation, and a ''fifteen minute'' block "to think about which mentor you would be choosing. Anyone can unblock you if you come up w/ a name before the block is expired."
*:Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. ] • ] ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:In summary, these charges are inflated beyond all reason, and the discussion here should be closed. Oh, except for the "Hated Google Test" thing, I don't know if he meant that to be in WP: namespace or what, but it's just weird. Maybe we could, you know ''ask him'' instead of handing out the pitchforks and torches, again. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
*::This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. ] (]) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
===PalestineRemembered is grateful not to be blocked with prejudice as has happened repeatedly before===
*:::I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per ], as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. ] (]) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm doing my best to act in a responsible and consistent fashion in articles and Talk. Edits such as (the first one I'm being challenged on) strike me as entirely proper. If a particular ] commentator (or public relations spokesman - or even propaganda operative) has commentated on a particular incident in world affairs, we should use his terminology for the event. His terminology is likely to be POV - so what? To quote him in any other fashion raises all kinds of issues, perhaps including BLP. The encyclopedia should not be going there.
*::::That's definitely OK with me. ] • ] ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:The second charge against me seems to relate to standard international useage of the term "occupied territory". It's hardly POV on my part to assert that we use the recognised term - in fact, it's more than a teensy-weensy bit disturbing I should be taken to AN/I for defending a standard useage.
*::::Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. ] (]) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:I won't bother going through the rest of these accusations point by point, I think we can take it as read that they are trivial. (Has anyone, ever, been taken to AN/I for creating an article? Particularily one that most editors would probably like to see included as policy - the thing I've called the "Hated Google Test"?)
*:::::Should I ping? ] (]) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:But I will comment on the and subsequent and on the case that bears my name. I pleaded that the Committee examine the case properly and arbitrate definitively on the accusations against me. Opinion for doing so swung in my favour, reaching 4-1 (my memory, anyway?), before swinging back and being defeated. I will continue to assert that if vile accusations of "taking views and references from Holocaust Deniers" are bandied around in a reckless and provably false fashion, then they should be unequivocably retracted and apologised for. Simple justice demands no less.
*:I gladly and humbly '''accept''' your mentorship offer. ] • ] ⚽ 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Lastly, I have a plea of my own - it is clear that there are editors around who damage the encyclopedia (I don't include my current accuser in this case, I'm not aware our paths have ever crossed). <s>Such editors:</s> (Have removed my listing cluttering page ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
*::Just to be clear, this would be a ] offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose. ] (]) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:All in all, there are really serious problems, up to and including outright disruption, going on in the project. But I'm small fry indeed in the scale of things! ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


:Completely not related but wanting to chime in.
:::::I can't see anything here but an adventitious act of prosecutorial wikilawyering bullying based on spurious evidence, and am ashamed that such trivial accusations should be raised to clutter up the machinery of arbitration, which is better dedicated to serious matters.
:I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @] handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @], it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer. ] (]) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Furthermore, no one is perfect. Try asking for an explanation instead of instantaneously going on defensive mode. That will always help. Be humble. ] (]) 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have taken up the mentorship offer. ] • ] ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). ] (]) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. ]] 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Agreed, @] maybe hold off on pings for now. ] (]) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Alright, sounds good. ] (]) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Per ] I think pings are appropriate now. ] (]) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor. ] (]) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. ] (]) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm now home and will start drafting after lunch. I'll send it you before posting it here. ] • ] ⚽ 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed? ] (]) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed ]. ] (]) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for . I did not read the discussion until after you , so it was not evident that a specific mentor had been named. ] (]) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


===Response from Footballnerd2007===
:::::Worse. ]'s factitious jeremiad includes two pieces of 'evidence' involving passages in which I was in conflict with ]. I have some tough and stubborn all-Israeli(i.e.'Hear no evil, see no evil' attitudes) adversaries in these controversial pages, as full of POV as a po (and no doubt they see my editorial work in a similar light). I have personally seen however no grounds for taking these adversaries to arbitration. One fights these things out on the talk page. It's the actual page that has to be free of POV, not the talk page.
Good Afternoon all,


Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.
:::::Since I have just noted, and been amazed by, this snooping, dossier building and then 'denunciation' to the authorities, I haven't given this much thought, since I thought that went out sometime before the end of the first half of the last century. But if the frivolous character of the accusation requires close analysis, I'm ready to weigh in with one, starting with the fact that on long-standing pages, Great Britain was (until I noted it casually this morning) arraigned (in the most objective prose, NPOV) as being corresponsible for the Holocaust. I could multiply such examples by the hundreds, and with this absurd POVing in NPOV dress throughout wikipedia, anyone who undertakes to clean it up gets, while no doubt having a POV hidden or otherwise of his/her own, into huge edit battles by people more familiar with wikilawyering than the principles of forensic evidence and the rules of neutral historian writing. ] 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity.
Block him. Misplaced Pages is not a place for false propoganda, and that's the cause he wants to use it for. ] 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading.
:Hmm. So "true propaganda" is OK, then? -- ] 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It has become a Misplaced Pages tradition to drop in on one of these pages (AN/I, CSN, Arbcom) every month or so and try to get PR banned. Usually this involves some regular participant in the daily cafeteria foodfight of WP's Middle-East-related talk pages leaving the fray for a minute, wiping the applesauce and mayonnaise off his fingers and tucking in his shirt, then marching to the principle's office to announce in precocious adult-like tones that PR has been misbehaving again. What a load of balderdash. Again.--] 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:So says PR's "wiki-lawyer" and another chronic soapboxer. This is really boring. Despite the apologia, if PR himself can't see how his behaviour here is problematic, he's going to wind up the same way as ] below. ] 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::Why don't we ban all pro-Israeli editors instead, it's not as if the result would be any different save for the POV which gets across. The monthly whining about the existence of opposition is laughable. Letting the Misplaced Pages Jews (bad word?) have their way with the Middle East articles would be productive only in their own eyes. --]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
===comment regarding PR (by ])===
====Disclaimer:====
1. I have an overly prolonging conflict with PalestineRememberd, but seeing that his friends decided to advocate for him, i've decided to list the recent issues i've had with him.


The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.
2. noting the advocacy situation, i will not list down anything that might be presented later as a content related COI - i think it would be difficult for anyone to follow up what is true and what is false and i'd be worried that the conversation could get distracted from the main issue.


I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise.
====1. evidence to support the old blocks. ====
Due to consistent harassments by PR, accusing me of, ''"a long history of disruptive behaviour on TalkPages"'', () where he'd add a link to an old and complex ANI he was not even involved in, and after i repeatedly told him that his accusation is false and asked him to stop, i've decided in my anger to go back and inspect some of his history.


I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Misplaced Pages is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.
i went back 1500 edits and started going up - and stopped after a month and a half.


] • ] ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
''''. - '''in short,''' i think there's evidence to support the old blocks.
:Thank you for this. ]] 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. ] • ] ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. ] (]) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::To be fair, @], I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... ] (]) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. ] (]) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. ] (]) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{U|Nfitz}}, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) ]] 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It was a bit short, ], but . ] (]) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s ({{tq|{{small|I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.}}}}) and it came back "99% human". ]] 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from ]. ] • ] ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well geez now I'm curious what overlaps with Wikilawyering. ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. ] • ] ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning.
:The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before.
:<br>
:English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned.
:<br>
:I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend.
:<br>
:I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @] clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed.
:I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours.
:<br>
:Cheers,<br>
:] (]) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are looking for ]. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. ]] 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I was about to begin a reply with "]",{{dummy ref|TOMATS}} but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the word&shy;smithing. ] (]) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior.
:@]
:@]
:@]
:@]
:{{ping|Black Kite}}
:{{ping|Bugghost}}
:{{ping| isaacl}}
:{{ping| CommunityNotesContributor}}
:{{ping| Randy Kryn}}
:{{ping|Bbb23}}
:{{ping| Cullen328}}
:{{ping| Simonm223}}
:{{ping|Folly Mox}}
:{{ping| Bgsu98}}
:{{ping|Yamla}}
:Sorry for the delay CNC.
:Cheers, <br> ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. ] (]) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Please don't send mass ping ] to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. ] (]) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. ]&nbsp;] 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Since we're here (at the most visible venue): ] (2023) concludes inconclusively. {{Slink|Special:Permalink/1265594360|Copyright of LLM output}} (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. ] (]) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. ] (]) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. ] (]) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when ''you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar''... With that said, I do want to '''strongly admonish FBN''', because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example {{tq|I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone }} however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simply {{tq|That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.}}. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that ''they didn't use chat GPT'' even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that they {{tq|now realise was evasive}} -- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement of {{tq|to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy}}. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. ]&thinsp;] 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== MAB Teahouse talk ==
====2. harassment regarding my rich history (according to PR) ====
As mentioned above, there's an issue of him following me around telling everyone how rich my history of harassing people on their user pages supposedly is. i've not only explained to him that he misunderstood this (quite old) issue (he was not involved in) and requested him to stop on many occasions, but also reached the point where i was forced to place warnings and even opened an ANI to this issue.


I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- =====
this was his response to my note about a very disruptive edit.


:Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{tl|Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ] (]) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
This situation escalated to an ANI after he insisted on - - closed without any administrative involvement to either the issue of abuse, or his status as "Mentorship challenged" (after his CSN).
::I protected ] for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — ] (]) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::OK, I've fixed that. — ] (]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. ] (]) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::<small>In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's ]? ] (]) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::::<small>I think it's just you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)</small>


== Kosem Sultan - warring edit ==
after he continued his abuse, i've opened a <u>forth</u> ANI (first two were about him <u>''repeatedly accusing me to be a war criminal''</u>) demanding at least the issue of the mentor be resolved - and it ended with '''me''' finding ] to be his a mentor.
Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this.


I was editing page of ] and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667
- i note that in this ANI ] has expressed clearly that, ''"Users are given latitude as to what comments to keep and delete from their own user talk. However, removal of material is recognized as having read it, and now '''s/he's been warned''' of the harrassment you claim. '''If s/he conducts further harrassment, please report it''' - and link back here so that whoever has to deal with it knows that this editor has been warned of it before."''


Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.
well, this issue has not ceased and here are just a few recent links:


As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here:
* his response to my note regarding a disruptive edit - .
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I.
2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed
(I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date)


I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions).
* his response to me explaining something i discussed with his mentor -
I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage
used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked.
Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.


Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --] (]) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* jumping in to attack me for raising the issue of disruptive edits by Eleland. -


:I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. ] (]) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
====3. regarding the issue of PalestineRemembered mentor. ====
::I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom. ] (]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== IP persistently removing sourced content. ==
I believe ] has been a very reasonable and neutral. whenever i raised an issue i'd be challenged by her with proper questions and was forced to prove my case fully - to which she'd make (pending if my case was convincing) comments to PalestineRemembered requesting him to explain his edit or avoid making an obvious breach.


I've been recently getting a tad frustrated with Geni's lack of response to the accumulative and exauhstive nature of the problem, to which i recieved a response that she not only does not see a problem, but also that she never believed there was ever a problem to begin with.


] has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles ], ], ], ] where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have ]red on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are ]. In they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- ]-'']'' -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I have great respect for Geni as a reasonable and logical editor, but considering the community ''did'' believe there was a problem, I questioned why she hadn't made her position clear when she volunteered to mentor PalestineRemembered. Obviously, i would not have approved a mentor who thinks there was never a problem to begin with.


:<small>Courtesy ping, {{ping|Cassiopeia|KylieTastic|p=}} also have tried to warn this IP user.</small> -- ]-'']'' -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
'''In short,''' I believe she's been quite helpful as an outside WP:3O, but hasn't really fulfilled the mission she signed up to.
::While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples: is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults. . I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. -- ]-'']'' -- 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Edit warring on US politicians around the ] ==
====summary====
{{atop
personally, i feel PalestineRemembered
| result = The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered. ] ] 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}}
I'm getting caught up into an edit war with {{userlinks|The Lord of Misrule}} regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on ], ], and ]. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:Any so-called "commentary" has been removed, ie "complicity" and now just facts related to the subject and topic remain, yet here we are. Cheers ] (]) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
# has been a major disruption to content disputes breaking policies whenever an opportunity presented itself. (despite advocacy by his friends)
:I will note, per the International Criminal Court, any material support for War Crimes, like funding or vetos allowing war crimes to continue in the UN Security Council, are themselves War Crimes https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf Cheers ] (]) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
# has not learned that repeatedly attacking others with false assertions was wrong.
::Unless you can find a RS to back that up, that would be OR. ]] 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
# is not only still in breach of the post-CSN mandate he's been given but he's been doing it knowingly.
:I just reverted TLoM's most recent , {{tq|has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements.}} when the source says {{tq|vetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N.}} The '''three''' ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violate ]. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs. ]&nbsp;] 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers ] (]) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If {{tqq|more scholarly works will be forthcoming}}, then ] when ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:@], they ] by @] on the 17/02/2024. Should this perhaps be best addressed at ]? '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of ]. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Will do. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Given the thread below I think we should discuss a topic-ban here and now, rather than going thru AE. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Perhaps. I was going to initially bring this to 3RRNB but decided to bring it here. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Removal of legitimately sourced information concerning ongoing Genocide in Gaza ===
I hope that some steps be made to resolve the issue, be it a periodical ban, topic ban, a more constrictive mentor and editing mandate, or other. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Retaliatory. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
===Dispute resolution process and ANI===
{{userlinks|Bbb23}} has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the ]. Cheers ] (]) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
So. . .is this page part of the DR process now? It's a lot of material (and sub-headings!) for an 'incident'. ] 10:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:What subject? ] (]) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::@], see the directly above discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


== Tendentious editor ==
:I vote we just delete any article having to do with Israel, Palestine, abortion, or pedophilia. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''10:13, 10/8/2007''</div>
::Seconded! ] 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Single purpose account {{Userlinks|NicolasTn}} is reverting again . They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. . ] (]) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
====Comment on Jaakobou's comment on PR====
:It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at ], why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try ]? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You called me a 'racist and a bigot' (and others 'antisemitic') for citing Sir Martin Gilbert's ''History of the Modern World'' on Hebron's massacre (59 slaughtered, as opposed to 67, the difference being that between immediate casualties and the final death toll), simply because I noted to you that he was Jewish, pro-Zionist and one of the most eminent historians of the modern world, i.e. several grounds for your not contesting him as a RS. You should sort your problems out with PR on the talk pages and not get involved with lobbying attempts to get rid of a person you find unwelcome because PR has in the past used language and accusations of a kind that you yourself have used. As I say, I don't worry about these accusations - water off a duck's back - we're supposed to be serious adults in here, not whingeing kids- and don't scurry to some legal mechanism to denounce the person who mouthes them. You needn't take my example, but all this interest on your part in getting PR banned is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, and trying to make the task of getting your own pronounced POV over more easy.] 10:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::They would probably respond only after being reverted again by me or the other editor. Since their one and only response, they've left the discussion hanging again while actively editing the article. ] (]) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:Adillia ==
# i replied to you above for the 59/67 issue and the accusation of unreliability.
# i'm fairly certain i did not call you racist by that exact word, but rather called your comments and notes racist and bigoted. just to explain this, i note you that you declared that the Jewish Community of Hebron website is run by many people with criminal records.<sup></sup>
:-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


{{Userlinks|Aidillia}}
: Jaakobou have a history of calling people he disagrees with racists and simmilar. // ]


I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on ] but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like ] and ], where the file are uploaded in ] and abided ] but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did ].
:: Jaakobou posted a diff to illustrate his reasoning, so read it and respond accordingly instead of making a blanket statement like this. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''12:02, 10/8/2007''</div>


Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::: If anybody following this tedious exchange wishes to have documented why ] cannot be relied on as a reliable source to recount what happened in the discussions alluded to in here, take the last example.</BR>


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


=== User:D.18th ===
:::::<blockquote>('''A''').'i note you that '''you declared that the Jewish Community of Hebron ''website'' is run by many people with criminal records.'''</blockquote></BR>
{{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|D.18th}}


<s>This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore ].</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::<blockquote>('''B'''). I orginally wrote: 'The book, itself a legitimate source for all sorts of details, is hosted by '''the Jewish Community of Hebron, which is''', as I noted above, '''run by many people with criminal records''', and (has) a meticulously documented history of hate, violence, theft and murder in that area.' (See your note 33)</blockquote>


<s>:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism.</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I.e. I said '''the Jewish Community at Hebron''' is run by people with criminal records (check, to name but the most egregious of many examples:], ], ], and for the nonce, ], whose criminal record is posthumous but who is revered there for shooting 29 Arabs at prayer, mainly in the back, to celebrate ]*.) I did not say their '''website''' is run by criminals, as Jaakobou cleverly twists those clear words to argue I did. Their website features David Wilder's articles, their spokesman, who accuses Netanyahu of all people of supplying Arab terrorists (Arafat) with guns with those superior in firepower to the ones in standard use in the IDF, Israel's past governments as regimes, all Arab members of the Knesset as 'terrorists', all Arabs in Eretz Israel as 'terrorists', and denounces the creeping AIDS (Arabs in Disguise Syndrome) threatening to destroy Zion with its terroristic infections. But that is another matter.
:{{re|Aidilla}} You have failed to notify {{User|D.18th}} of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::], you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will show up as <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{done}}, thanks! <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov ==
:::As I have said, the difficulty in editing pages with ] is that one has to persist over long stretches of Talk in explaining to him elementary aspects of English syntax, grammar and what is or is not implied by a standard sentence in that language
{{atop|result=All of the named parties have been indefinitely blocked with checkuser blocks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Azar Altman}}
*{{userlinks|Farruh Samadov}}
{{user|Azar Altman}} was ] for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named {{user|Farruh Samadov}} appeared. One of their edits at ] is , the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of ]. They did this three more times (, , ). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice (, ), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a ]. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –] (]]) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:I opened a a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. ] (]) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::To anticipate and avoid a useless thread that may arise from my wording. Please don't jump at the phrase 'to celebrate ]' here. If one is agitated, read before drafting a reply Ian Lustik's ''For the Land and the Lord'' American Council on Foreign Relations (1988) (1994) Preface. ] 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::Pinging @] who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. ]&thinsp;] 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. ] (]) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::], yes, that's how that goes. ] (]) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was {{tq|Stop discriminating by violating Misplaced Pages rules.}} when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. ]&thinsp;] 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles ==
::::To get get back on topic. Can you explain how Jaakobou calling you a racist exonerates PR's behaviour? Also, I looked at the diff Jaakobou provided, and it looks like some pretty bigoted soapboxing and poor behaviour on your part. You didn't provide any diffs where where he calls you a racist, but I don't see how it's germane anyway. ] 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Jaakobou's notorious unreliability in articles and now his apparent distorting evidence to an AN/I is highly relevant to the discussion. It's pretty rich of him to accuse others (not me, for some reason?!) of racism when he jeers at editors over their nationality. Here is to ], a French speaking pro-Israeli who has stated that the equivalent article in the French Misplaced Pages (which Alithein wrote) uses better references: ''"best i'm aware, this is the english wikipedia, if the french version is unbalanced (what else is new), that is not my issue to solve"'' From an editor who repeatedly insists on putting non-English references into the encyclopedia (and is refusing to translate the texts) this is pretty astonishing behaviour. Also suggests he rates academics and scholarly work generally pretty low - as we see from his treatment of well-read and articulate editors in here. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::PS - Another example of Jaakobou's creative treatment of sources was elegantly dissected this morning. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I don't see anything in that diff that qualifies for the descriptions you're asserting. Furthermore none of it matters, even if everyone agreed with your assessments. You're forming a conclusion about a person to say whether not he's reliable based on your interpretations of his past statements, which is just not a tactic that has any place at ANI -- or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. We don't generally make decisions about whether or not to trust a person based on a character assessment. Someone asked how Jaakobou calling you a racist exonerates your behavior, and you responded by citing more of Jaakobou's behavior. Rather than implying that the complainer is himself guilty and therefore somehow shouldn't be the one to complain, talk about yourself and the things people are complaining that you said instead. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''18:25, 10/8/2007''</div>


Request an immediate and extended range block for {{User|49.145.5.109}}, a certified sock of LTA ] from editing ] and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also ]. ] (]) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Role of the mentor ===
:It seems like this should be reported at ], not at ANI. That's where the checkusers are at although they are generally reluctant to connect an IP account with a blocked sockpuppet. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is already confirmed in the SPI. However, as it is an IP account that can't be indeffed, I'd had to check my calendar too often to see when their existing block expires. 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== SeanM1997 ==
There is a serious problem here, if you don't mind my saying so, but I question whether it is entirely (if at all) PR's fault. Previously, the community imposed mandatory mentoring, but it failed to specify the ''conditions, timeframe or goals'' of such mentoring. So how can we evaluate the success of the mentor's role?! Perhaps PR and Geni (the mentor) bear some responsibility to come up with their definition of PR's shortcomings and their own goals for improvement. However, the burden should fall largely on the community.
{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub>}}
*{{User|SeanM1997}}


User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despite ] and ]. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for example on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. And where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline.
Karl suggests that an admin intercede. Well, it's hard to say that PR is flawless, but I'm not sure if the community has done its part to ensure a good mentoring framework. What would you all think of the suggestion that an admin intercede in order to clarify and strengthen the mentoring arrangement? Maybe set clear and (somewhat) measurable goals? Only then can we give a fair assessment of PR's conduct within a mentoring set-up. (Or assess Geni, though I hear few complaints there.)


Combined with ], giving him a ], I think something has to be done. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Alternatively, if the community is unwilling or unable to articulate what it wants out of mandatory mentoring, I recommend that the mentoring requirement be rescinded and that (hard as this may be) folks revisit the need for action due to PR's conduct.
:Reading SeanM1997's talk page is a depressing saga. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content for years, despite being warned repeatedly. The editor can be unblocked if they promise to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time. ] (]) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::It should be noted that SeanM1997 has in the past posted a tweet to support something, then used a news story referencing his tweet as a source to insert into an article. Despite many years and many many conversations, they don't/won't understand the concept of independent reliable sources. ] ] 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Deegeejay333 and Eurabia ==
I wish to avoid evaluating PR's conduct here myself. Instead, the community set up a process (mentoring), which it either needs to make work or abandon. As we say outside New England, ]. My two cents. Good luck to all. ] | ] 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:First of all, I have to absolve you from the atrocious charge of being "a buddy" of mine - an accusation liable to cause you big problems (and very distorting anyway, however much respect I have and show for your judgements).
:I have no great problem with being "mentored" by ] - indeed there are big advantages to this arrangement. Between the 15th of September and the 7th of October (over 3 weeks!) it had protected me from repeated carpetings and kickings.
:And this despite the fact it's moderately tiresome to be constantly defending myself from ludicrous allegations on the I set up for this purpose. (Leastways, as best I can tell, most of the allegations have been wrong and the remainder have been trivial). However I sometimes wonder if Geni is getting more sick of the arrangement than I am and I have offered to let him off. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Much of the activity of the infrequently active user {{userlinks|Deegeejay333}} appears to be attempts to whitewash anything to do with the ], attempting to present it as "fact", despite the fact that scholarly sources have consistently defined it as a conspiracy theory (see , ). I think this makes them ]. ] (]) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I would suggest that viewing the complaints as trivial as a mistake. In the other cases the explantion should have been given before the edit.] 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
: Notifed their talkpage . Despite their long periods of inactivity, their most recent activity is today . ] (]) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:The rest of their edits on unrelated topics seem unobjectionable. I think page blocks would get the job done in preventing further disruption (I can't get around to doing that right now, but that's my two cents). ] (]/]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Really? You see nothing wrong with {{diff|Nathan Phillips (activist)|prev|879336081|these}} {{diff|Enhanced interrogation techniques|prev|871177370|edits}}? --] 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah. It does kind of look like this editor is ] except to do battle with the terrible forces of Misplaced Pages leftism. ] (]) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I did a quick look; I didn't look at all of their edits. I agree that edit is also problematic. ] (]/]) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::White-washing ] was also the very first edit they made at Misplaced Pages as well as their most recent. This is an ongoing issue. ] (]) 18:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:Wigglebuy579579 ==
:::Jaakobou claimed that he'd "received a response that she not only does not see a problem, but also that she never believed there was ever a problem to begin with." Is that true Geni? ] 00:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*{{Userlinks|Wigglebuy579579}} keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour:
::::I do not think there was a problem to the extent that some suggest. In adition I would argue that past attempts to deal with what problems do exist have been poorly thought out due to people attempting putting shuting out POVs they disagree with ahead of trying to come up with a reasonable solution to the problem.] 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
# they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text;
# they ignored all warnings onto their talk{{nbs}}page;
# they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them.
{{U|Miminity}} and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again.<span id="Est._2021:1736271756958:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt">{{snd}}] (] <b>·</b> ]) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
: I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. ] (]) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:], can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Some pertinent examples ] (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and ] (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. ] (]) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{re|Liz}} Examples include:
:::#], ] and ];
:::#] and ];
:::#] and ];
:::#];
:::among others. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Liz}} This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. ] '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Are any of the references in ] real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::The ] essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|rsjaffe}} Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to hear from @], but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Click all the link on the ], all of them are {{tl|failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete
::::{{ping|Wigglebuy579579}} care to explain? '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{yo|rsjaffe}} more ref-checking at ]: as ] observes, ''The Angami Nagas: With Some Notes on Neighbouring Tribes'' exists (although with the BrE spelling of the title) and I accessed it at archive.org. It does not mention ''pfütsana'' anywhere in its 570 pages. The closest we get is ''pfuchatsuma'', which is a clan mentioned in a list of sub-clans of the Anagmi. The draft says {{tq|The term Pfütsana is derived from the Angami language, where "Pfü" translates to "life" or "spirit,"}} which is contrary to what ''The Angami Nagas'' says – ''pfü'' is a suffix functioning sort of similarly to a pronoun (and I think I know how the LLM hallucinated the meaning "spirit" but this is getting too long already). I looked at a couple of the sources for ] as well, and I haven't been able to find a single instance where the source verifies the claims in the draft. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for checking. Those are now deleted. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:*] and ], thanks for supplying examples that can be reviewed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:I have deleted ] and ] as they have falsified references. Checking the others would be appreciated. Also, editor has been warned on their page about inserting unsubstantiated demographic data in articles. ]. I think we’re running out of ] here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking ==
:::::I'll agree that past descriptions of the problem have been over blown, and some of the past "solutions" were completely unacceptable. The first CSN proposal for a ban is a flagrant example. My stated willingness to unblock and undo that "solution" forced the matter to ArbComm, where most of those advocating or implementing the solution realized that the real problem was both different than, and much less severe than, originally claimed, and that the "solution" was the wrong move. I also agree with Geni's analysis of the poor choices about how to engage in dispute resolution on the part of PR's opponents. ] 05:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|Not a problem; request rejected}}


(outdent) OK well here's what I think is a fundamental problem. Both yours and GRBerry's comments show, a) at the very least, a minority viewpoint on how disruptive PR is, and b) assuming it's just partisan game playing. I'm sorry, but that's just rubbish. I've compared PR to ] who's just got blocked for a year -same pattern, opposite POV. Please note the complete lack of apologia for M.V.E.i. from "the usual Zionist suspects" (or more correctly, those perceived as such). M.V.E.i. was shown the door, and that's good. Conversely, we have yet another debate about PR's behaviour. The point of mentorship should be that PR '''improves''' -and not just according to the people that didn't see a big problem in the first place, and the ''immediate'' end of his disruption. PR ''must'' start contributing according to both WP policy, and the community's standard of behavior or be shown the door. So far, about the only "improvement" I've seen is that PR has learned not to mention when launching because it allows . Great. ] 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:I would advise anyone interested to examine the three diffs just provided by ] and confirm them to be completely innocuous. Closer examination would suggest my words were puzzlingly restrained ''"We should not be labelling sources by their ethnicity. That's the kind of thing that the South Africans used to do."'' ] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


*{{userlinks|BittersweetParadox}}
=== Statement by the Party PR's contested edits are assumed to offend ===


This user is persistently ]ing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example:
] out of the blue notices an editor, PalestineRemembered, doing edits that worried him. 'They didn't make articles more neutral and informative' (i.e. he/she was behaving like half of the wiki community, and very much like Jaakobou, his/her adversary in these proceedings)
*
*
*
*
* (unexplained citation removal as well)
*
*
*


I have also ] regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior:
(1)Meier then charges PR with using edit summaries for soapboxing and cites:-
*
*
*
*
*


This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in ], where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, . With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. ] (]) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::'Internationally recognised as Occupied - a status having significant daily effects on the life of all who live there.'</BR>


:Overlinking still continuing on despite this ANI (), and even with an administrator , continues on with their edits/ignoring this ANI. The user is not appearing to want to ] whatsoever, and some of their communication over issues in the past does not bode well as well ().
The first part is correct, since the International Court has established in a virtually unanimous opinion that the West Bank/Palestinian territories is 'Occupied Territory' despite the article in Wiki that messily endeavours to obfuscate the obvious.
:They are adding many uses of , despite the usage instructions saying that the template should '''''not''''' be used in prose text. I really am not sure what more there is to do here, as any attempts at communicating with the user does virtually nothing. ] (]) 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{ping|BittersweetParadox}} It's rather insulting to state you'll comment here and then continue to overlink . Please stop editing like this until you can address the above concerns. Rgrds. --] (]) 07:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Liz}} Apologies for the ping, but could there please be some assistance here?... As BX stated above, despite their only communication thus far since this ANI (being a simple, "ok"), they have still continued overlinking- now overlinking '''''even more''''' since BX's comment above: . I'm really not sure what more there is that can be done here apart from a block, as it appears this is just going to continue on, no matter what anyone says here or on their talk page. ] (]) 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Several of the diffs you give are positive changes, and your inappropriate reverts have caused articles to be underlinked. Leave BittersweetParadox alone. If you insist that he be sanctioned for the negative edits, you'll get some as well. ] (]) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==Repeated pov pushing ==
The second part is waffly, and useless, it is hardly a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages editing. If anything, a word to PR to keep things brief and to the point, would be enough. Secondly, it is meaningless, so cannot be soapboxing.
{{atop|This is a content dispute and ANI is not the venue to resolve those. {{U|Hellenic Rebel}}, you've had multiple editors tell you that you are not correct. Please take the time to understand why. ] ] 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
] , despite the disagreements, continues to try to impose his personal opinion, for which he cannot cite any source that justifies him. Clearly original research.


Meier says he had the impression (1) PR's edits weren't making articles more neutral (neither are those of PR's opponents on the relevant controversial pages, so big deal). And a loose phrase in an edit summary is 'soapboxing'.


From this, he hits the panic button. '''Misplaced Pages is under threat, let's look closely at this PR chap, and, if my intuitions are right, get her banned''' (all this on the extremely loose and fragile basis of the original intuition, based on a general impression and one useless piece of pseudo evidence).


Meier then proceeds to a forensic examination.


:::(1)The edit putting 'death' for murdered or whatever on the 1929 Hebron Massacre Page.


This evidence is useless because Meier hasn't read the talk page there, as is evident from his comment that in writing 'death' PR was suggesting 67 Jews died of 'natural causes' in a violent mob riot. Actually, had Meier read the page, he would have known that 2-3 died of 'natural' causes, in so far as it is natural to have a heart-attack from shock on witnessing one act of carnage, or surviving some weeks to die of shock in the aftermath. The problem was that 64-5 were slaughtered, not 67, hence if you refer to 67, died doesn't create problems, whereas 'slaughtered/murdered' falsifies the record. Having followed my tussle with Jaakobou over this, PR knew that the key word is problematical, and suggested a change. I don't agree with it, but it is an innocuous suggestion that makes the verb in the sentence cohere with the facts of 67.


See also, talk with ] ] (]) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
(2)Refers to two pieces of remonstration against two of my contributions to the Talk pages. PR here, in my view, completely misunderstood the purport of my evidence, but then so do many others (perhaps I don't explain myself well). It is no crime on a talk page to express your POV. Virtually everyone working on Israel/Palestinian articles has one, and to single out PR for this means you must then line up Jaakobou and several dozen others, myself included, for expressing POVs on the relevant talk pages. I object to PR's confusing bad partisan and irresponsible blindly Zionist editors, of which there are many, with 'Israelis', but we know where PR is coming from.


:Replying since I've been tagged. I do think this is a behavioural issue rather than a content one. User has been repeatedly warned on their talk page by several users about edits to the article in question but has belligerently refused to engage in constructive discussion about said edits.
(3)PR's use of a partisan website jewsagainstzionism.com
:User was clearly warned about continuing this in the closure message of the last ANI discussion not to resume the edits but the response on the article's talk page was notably dismissive of said warning.
The evidence culled from that site is not contested, since, as I showed, it was copied and pasted from a respectable reliable source, namely Neturei karta Jews United against Zionism. You can get hysterical at 'Jewsagainstzionism' perhaps, but not against 'jewsunitedgainstzionism' since this is a legally qualified site. PR didn't search around sufficiently to get a good source, Okay, but the material she cited is acceptable as MPerel now notes, if sourced to Weiss's Haredi site.
:Quite honestly I think this is a case of ]. The user in question has just plead that they have special knowledge we don't and has steadfastly refused to demonstrate in reliable sources the contents of their edits. Despite being informed of how consensus works they have resorted to counting votes and even in that case just dismissing the views of those against him for contrived reasons. ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:: My friends, anonymous user and @], and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the . The administrator in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?<br/>P.S.: Rambling Rambler, please stop bombing links to wikipedia policies and then trying to interpret them and "fit" them to the issue. This practice resembles clickbait, you are simply trying to show that you are knowledgeable about politics and appear superior, and this is annoying. ] (]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. ] (]) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not going to reopen the content aspect of this here. I have made you aware, '''repeatedly''', of our polices when it comes to including claims. You need to provide reliable sources and the burden is on those wanting to include challenged statements to meet consensus to include them. You have now just admitted there is no consensus yet you felt entitled to reintroduce challenged material.
::::This is precisely a "I don't have to" issue. ] (]) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also tagging @] as they probably have a view on this given their previous action. ] (]) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. ]:<br/> Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long '''after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive'''. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. '''The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you'''. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".<br/>You can see the bold parts. It's obvious from those, that this policy does not refer to cases where four user with two different opinions participated. It refers to cases where one or a minority of users refuses to accept the community's decision because they believe their opinion is superior. In our discussion, my version never rejected from the community, it was rejected only by you and the anonymous user. In this case, either you believe that the majority or the community in general is you and the anonymous user, or you are simply trying to propagate your position. ] (]) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You were linked ] during the discussion and clearly acknowledged it.
:::::: So you are aware of it, which bluntly states:
::::::''The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.''
::::::In your previous reply you have admitted that there isn't consensus.
::::::You have broken policy and are just once again stubbornly refusing to adhere to it. ] (]) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@] There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Misplaced Pages policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. ] (]) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This wall of text is the exact problem at hand here. You won't follow our site's policies but instead are just making up your own as to why breaking policy is now fine. The "discussion" was barely dormant and as you admit there was no consensus on including the material you demand be included. Ergo, per policy it can't be included.
::::::::Frankly you are incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. I think the fact that you've been blocked repeatedly both here and at our Greek equivalent for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring demonstrates this very well. ] (]) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@] The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is '''ad-hominem''' again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It is not ad hominem to bring up your history of blocks for edit warring and disruption when the topic of discussion is your conduct.
::::::::::The policy, which I quoted for your benefit, '''literally''' says the onus is on the person who wants to '''include''' the disputed content '''which is you'''. You want this claim to be on the article and myself and others have disputed it. ] (]) 21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::@] there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. ] (]) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... ] (]) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@] yes it is a dispute, but if there is not a consensus that your dispute is valid, the version that remains is the original one, that is also supported by source. ] (]) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There has never been a specific version of the article. A few hours after adding the uncited 5 MPs, the edit was undone. It is also worth noting that the original contributor of the addition about mps, Quinnnnnby never engaged in an edit war or challenged our disagreements, as you did. ] (]) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @]. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... ] (]) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Hellenic Rebel}}, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you '''must''' include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page ''instead'' of just ramming into the article. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@] there was a discussion on the page. The source states that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are in the new party. And the users, after their first argument that it should have a parliamentary group was shot down (as it was obvious that this policy is not followed in any party), they moved on to a logic that the source should say verbatim "5 MPs '''stand'''" for the party... ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@] I have lost hours of my life to "discussing" this at this point. They're entirely either refusing or simply incapable of understanding that because they have sources for Claim A that doesn't mean they can put a similar but still different Claim B on the article. They however insist they can because unlike us they're "Hellenic" and therefore know that Claim A = Claim B while refusing to accept this is ]. ] (]) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from ] ==
True, on the talk page, PR adds 'these folk are outraged that their faith is so horrendously abused', a remark that, referring to a very small Haredi sect happens to be true. That Haredi sect is very small, but it carries on what was the majority opinion of Orthodox European Rabbis before the foundation of the State of Israel. The majority were horrified at Zionism for theological reasons, i.e. that secularists were doing the work delegated by Torah tradition to the Messiah, a blasphemy. So there's nothing wrong in PR reminding us of this forgotten fact.
{{atop|result={{nac}} While {{u|KMaster888}}'s editing history (the original discussion) wasn't inherently bad in itself, their conduct after being questioned about it was bad, violating ], ], ], and ] See , , , , , , , , , and their comments on this thread. Indeffed by {{u|Cullen328}}, and TPA revoked after , another personal attack. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
] appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window.


I attempted to ask about the policies around this at ] and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't):
(4) PR has a mentor, who has 'failed to change' PR's behaviour into something that is remotely acceptable.'


Excuse me but of the three issues raised, most editors whose work I am familiar with regularly fall into errors of this kind (a certain loss of patience, an intemperate outburst, a controversial edit. I am dealing myself with text and page disruptions by several anonymous or abusive posters (not reported, it's too time consuming). Nothing in (1) (2) (3) merits scapegoating PR, '''particularly since most of the evidence refers to conflict edits with me, Nishidani, and relates to comments of exasperation with me on a talk page, and I have found no reason to complain''', unlike ] who, inexplicably, now rushes to my apparent, yet unrequested, need of assistance. I dislike someone jumping into our momentary conflict, and exploiting it for the purposes of banning the other person. I have found, in our exchanges, nothing that has troubled me, (since I have had similar conflicts with many other pro-Israeli editors and have not found it necessary to resort to arbitration) on the pages we both work on, and therefore am inclined to suspect this whole accusation is a , pretext for trying to get PR off Misplaced Pages, at least by adding another black mark on the record. '''I should be the person to complain''' not Meier, who has not worked on the pages cited in evidence against PR, '''were there 'disruptive behavior and policy violations'. In my view, there hasn't been anything serious of the sort.'''


As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM ( not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound).
(5)'he has already been warned extensively about soapboxing and biased and confrontational editing.'


Following the quite hot thread at ]'s page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited ''every single article'' that I had edited, ''in reverse order'' (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time.
Yes, and has visibly improved, though problems remain, but in the evidence presented by ] there is not a skerrick of material that would warrant more than a polite, stern rap over the knuckles for lapses of memory about the rules, of the kind many of us customarily receive here. This whole jeremiad is pretextual and embarrassingly POV.] 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with , , or at a rate far faster than any editor could address.
:i don't appreciate the POV comparison and allegation. you have something note-worthy? open a proper ANI. otherwise, do me a ]. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. ] 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::No favours. You waste an inordinate amount of time in futile wikilawyering when not POVing articles. I prefer to contribute to Misplaced Pages, not to waste other people's time and attention on immature whingeing to peers and authorities. 'If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen', don't worry the cooks ] 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


:I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Misplaced Pages so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by Geni===
::1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been
::2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. ] 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? ] (]) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. ] 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. ] (]) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. ] 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. ] (]) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::<s>Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow.</s> <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I am doing an "insource" search using regex. ] (]) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. ] (]) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. ] (]) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. ] 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? ] (]) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that {{u|KMaster888}} should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. ] (]) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'll just ask you straight up.{{pb}}Do you feel any remorse for this statement? {{tq|remove asshole}} {{pb}}Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::And again: {{tq|@The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments.}} ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::, , , , , ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And this: and this: ] (]) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. ] (]) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. ]] 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You are clearly ]. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. ] (]) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? ] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, ] and ] tell me the contrary. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries ''and here'' indicate they're ] in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. ] (]) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: ] over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of ] of the ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. ] (]) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::: is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing.
:The ] and ] of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –] <small>(])</small> 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. ] (]) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There are, in fact, {{tqq|specific discussion rules}} - ] and ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


===Propose indefinite block===
I would tend to argue that PR's behaviour has improved however he has continued to POV push and edit war although the second to a more limited extent. He has got better at discussing things on talk pages although he often needs prompting. One problem is that he does not appear to be able to take criticism of his actions seriously. The hated google test being a case in point.
{{atop|1=Blocked and TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|KMaster888}}
They demonstrate a severe inability to interact in the collegiate manner this project requires. The edit summaries are not merely uncivil, but dismissive: ignoring colleagues is worse than just being rude to them. Their behaviour on Novem Linguae's talk pretty much sums it up.{{pb}}Whether they are actually a bot or running a scruipt doesn't really matter: WP:BOTLIKE is pretty cl;ear trhat "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". So 10,000 edits or not, the edits smack of being bot/script-generated, and may also be WP:STALKING.{{PB}}I also don't set any store by the excuse for "wiping ass with comments", "improve asinine comment" and "remove asshole" being that {{blue|Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly.}} WMF servers going down (or not) do not cause aggressive edit summaries, and we are not fools. The fact that the same attitude pervades through this discussion—"everyone, get off my back"—suggests that this is default behaviour rather than a one off. ]'']''] 23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above reasoning. ]] 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Looks like {{noping|Cullen328}} beat us to that indef. ]] 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ] behavior. Their blank talkpage, on which they encourage discussion, has a nonexistent archive. ]] 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is not true. The archive page is at the subpage of the talk page, /archive. ] (]) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Support -''' While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. ] (]) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
As to his relation with other editors I do not believe that he functionally able to collaborate directly with Jaakobou at this time.
:Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Wow… ] ] 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}I have indefinitely blocked KMaster888 for personal attacks and harassment, and disruptive behavior. ] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. ] (]) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. is beyond the pale. This is clearly a person that lets rage get the best of them, and is not responsive to feedback. Not sure if we should close this, or let it play out and turn into a CBAN. –] <small>(])</small> 00:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Good block''' and I'd have done same if you hadn't been here first. Regardless of whether the edits were improvements, no one has the right to treat other editors as KM888 did. ] ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Good block''' It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon.
As such I believe some form of sanctions need to be put in place. However the problem is with coming up with sanctions that PR will take seriously and accept. At this point in time the conflict is so linked with Jaakobou that to an extent the two must be dealt with together. To that end '''I propose that PR should be banned from editing for one week any article he is found edit warring with anyone on. Where Jaakobou and PR are found edit warring with each other both should be banned from editing that article for one week. In addition I would suggest a 2 revert limit be imposed on PR with a 24 hour block from editing imposed if it is broken'''.] 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 03:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::''I'm highlighting Geni's proposal. Geni, pls revert highlighting if you wish!'' ] | ] 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}


===Investigating the hounding claim===
:Clarifying questions. (1) Initially, Geni, you indicate the ''POV pushing'' is a bigger problem than edit warring. However, your sanction proposals seem to deal with the edit warring alone. By what means do you think the POV pushing should be identified (e.g., by whom), and what sanctions would you recommend for any continued POV pushing? (2) Are you saying that PR is only having difficulties -- again, with regard to POV pushing -- in settings with Jaakobou? If so, I'm curious about PR's efforts at ], where Jaakobou is absent. Has PR successfully avoided POV pushing there in your (or others') estimation? If so, that would support your read of the situation. Thanks for your consideration and patience, ] | ] 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 is ] Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. The suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI). {{u|Warrenmck}}, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –] <small>(])</small> 23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:Note that there are >100 ''edits'' across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page.
::(1) I don't know. (2)PR has had conflicts with others that is why I in his case I suggested the week bans from articles be put in place for edit waring with anyone however the conflicts with Jaakobou are particularly problematical.] 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


:Sorry for the drama, by the way. ] 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::off course he has problems dealing with me, he's certain i'm a war criminal.<sup></sup>
::Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –] <small>(])</small> 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. ] (]) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:FMSky ==
:::i don't believe that contesting edits such as inserting ''''''<sup>(18:04, 26 Sep.)</sup> and also '''removing references to''' ''telegraph.co.uk, the Observer, Azure Magazine, nationalreview.com, ADL and the TIME.''<sup>"tele-daud","Crucible","azure",Time</sup> (<sup>18:00, 26 Sep.</sup>,<sup>21:07, 26 Sep.</sup>) should qualify as justification to suggest i should be banned so that PR will accept whatever sanction is suggested.
{{atop|1=]. PolitcalPoint blocked for a month for BLP violations. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|FMSky}}


] has been persistently engaging in ] by constantly reverting (see , , and ) in bad faith over the course of more than a week in order to prevent the insertion of sourced material that states that ] had "{{tq|touted working for her father’s anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against ] and promoted controversial ]", which is a discredited, harmful, and ] practice that falsely purports to "cure" ].}}" backed by two ] cited (see and ) in support of the specific wording inserted into the article.
:::I also don't think that his reactions, attacking me with "history of harassment" accusations, not only on conversations that have little to do with him but also if i ask him to find a reference to an assertion that ''"massacre" is clearly the word used by large sections of opinion.''<sup></sup> or just notify him that his mentor (you) told me to not try and continue working with him on a "article issues" page he created. should have been ignored like this by you.


For my part, I have consistently maintained a strict self-imposed policy of 0RR, never even once reverting ], listening to his concerns and taking his concerns seriously, tirelessly working to address his concerns with two ] cited (see and ) in support of the exact same wording that ] originally objected to (see ), then, when reverted again by ], I patiently continued to ] and ] (see and ), which he ], then when reverted yet again by ] (see ), explained to him the entire series of events (see ), which ] replied to by blatantly lying that I had not addressed his concerns (see ), which, when I pointed that out and showed him the ] that I cited in order to address his concerns (see ), ] replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia." (see ).
:::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm completely exasperated and exhausted at this point. If even using the ''exact same wording'' as the ] cited in support of the specific wording inserted into the article is ''still'' unacceptable to ], then I'm not sure what I'm even supposed to do to satisfy him. ] is clearly engaging in ] in bad faith and is ]. --] (]) 23:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not crazy about these sorts of "pox on both their houses"-type solutions. Yes, Jaakobou needs to try and disengage with PR, but the real issue here is PR. If there's a case against Jaakobou, that's a different situation. ] 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:@], your for "discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality" doesn't mention Gabbard or Hawaii or her father's organization. Have you read ]? ]&nbsp;] 23:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::trying solve the issues in this case useing an isolated system model wont work.] 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::More the case that trying to assert conversion therapy as discredited is a COATRACK, unless there was appropriate sourced coverage that associated Gabbatd with supporting a discredited theory. We can leave the blue link on conversion therapy carry the worry of explaining the issues with it, it doesn't belong on a BLP.<span id="Masem:1736293194333:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::::OK so PR trolls and stalks Jaakobou, calling him a war criminal, etc etc. Jaakobou gets pissed off and what, gets sanctioned because he complains about it? No. If there's a case against Jaakobou, it should stand independently of his fights with PR. ] 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::The wording does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" as the latter part of the wording, as supported by the second ] (see ), explains what ] is for the benefit of readers. --] (]) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No evidence has been presented of stalking; the comments occured on ] where both have long-term involvement, and on ] where both had previously left comments (thus likely watchlisting). PR also did not "call Jaakobou a war criminal", although he did ask an unjustified and provocatively phrased question in a way which strongly implied his own suspicions of the answer. Furthermore, this issue was already discussed extensively and resulted in a community remedy. Not even Jaakobou has accused PR of mentioning the "war criminal question" since that time. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Are you kidding me lmao. I didn't even notice that. That makes it even worse --] (]) 23:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Only commenting on this particular angle: {{ping|Schazjmd}} when dealing with fringe ideas, it ''is'' sometimes the case that sources provide weight connecting the subject to a fringe idea but which do not themselves adequately explain the fringe theory. If it's due weight to talk about something like conversation therapy (or creation science, links between vaccines and autism, etc.), we run afoul of ] if we don't provide proper context. These cases are rare, however, and this isn't a judgment about anything in the rest of this thread. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:The user was previously blocked and was only unblocked after agreeing to 0RR on BLPs. This was violated in the 3 reverts here and the concerns weren't adressed: , , . See also the previous discussion on PoliticalPoint's talk page that I initiated -- ] (]) 23:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq|FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia.}} I love how you, in bad faith, left out the most relevant part that I added: "And the statements weren't even attributed to someone" --] (]) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As ] (see ), those were edits, not reverts, over the course of more than week, and as also ] (see and ) your concerns with the wording were in fact addressed with two ] cited in support with the ''exact same wording'' that you objected to, verbatim. You are blatantly lying again, as the statement is, in fact, attributed to Gabbard herself as it is she herself who "touted working for her father's anti-gay organization", which is backed by the first ] (see ). --] (]) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No, these were reverts, as the wording I originally objected to was restored numerous times --] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those were edits over the course of over a week. The wording that you originally objected to was restored only with two ] that use the ''exact same wording'' verbatim. --] (]) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::If you used the same wording as the sources without an attributed quote you've committed a copyright violation. ] (]) 00:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Restoring removed content even without using the undo feature is a revert. ] (]) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::See above, Gabbard isn't even mentioned in one of the sources, which is insane and negates the need for any further discussion. This content should not be on her page & is probably the definition of a BLP violation. --] (])


Besides removing obvious SYNTH, I notice that FMSky reworked unnecessary overquoting; looks like good editing on FMSky's part. ] (]) 00:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I believe that the role of the mentor in this case needs to practice more tough love. I don't see any evidence of you correcting or guiding him. PR has a serious problem with letting go of past issues. For example, he continuously refers to my statement that he was "buddy-buddy" with HG and I believe he refers to it here. Nevermind he misunderstood what "buddy-buddy" means. Even when I've disengaged from the debate, PR uses my statement out of context as some sort of weapon in his wiki-crusade. The mentorship hasn't made progress, I don't see that happening and I believe that if mentorship is failing. the CSD case needs to be reopened and PR needs to be dealt with, his problematic pattern of behavior really needs to be addressed properly (perhaps via topic banning?). I also find it disturbing that the person who has stepped up to police his behavior is not aware of PR's record as brought up by HG, shouldn't a mentor be aware of his ward's activities? ] 01:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::::you have no idea what I am aware of.] 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Your statements that there is "no problem" above seem to belay your belief that PR is not a problem. That is what you seem to be unaware of.... PR's a huge problem and trivializing his disruption with one liners is not helpful. ] 03:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I have not until now used the text "no problem" in this debate.] 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Another thing I just noticed is that the article is special-protected: {{tq|"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."}} No such discussion was initiated on Gabbard's talk page --] (]) 00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''comment''' - Geni is aware that PR has not made any "breaches of 2RR" (perhaps one) and she's managed to come up with a suggestion that circumvents all the raised issues. i'm not entirely sure Geni's proposals are in good faith, but i agree that they could be considered. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*I have blocked PoliticalPoint for a month for BLP violations, an escalation of their prior two-week edit warring block. I had originally intended to just p-block them from Gabbard but I am not convinced they understand the issue and that the problematic editing wouldn't just move to another page. Should they eventually request an unblock I think serious discussion sould happen w/r/t a a topic ban on BLPs or American Politics. ] ] 01:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] ==
: I don't think the mentorship has made significant progress, but Geni's proposal is better than none at all, so I'll support it. ] 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Bgsu98}}
::I thought my mentorship under ] has made huge progress and been tremendously useful. I've been careful about my edits, reverts and so forth (I wasn't aware I was still short on Talk participation, but that's a fair comment), no harm done, I'm pretty careful anyway (otherwise I'd not still be here, now would I?). All complaints went via Geni - which was brilliant, most times I felt I was justified, one time I made a simple mistake, once s/he told me not to take any position on policy, twice s/he told me I'd crossed red-lines, things that were politically incorrect - I abided with each of those injunctions without complaint. (Well, I complained belatedly about the last, to counter-balance the allegation that Gina was being too soft on me). Turns out that Geni was being harrassed and bullied for not bullying me properly, but I didn't get any clue of that until the last few days. (incidentally I've not exchanged e-mails with Geni, all correspondence on ).
::There were no complaints about my edit-warring - which I don't do anyway ..... so the only slightly sour note is the remedies high-lighted. In my humble opinion, they're nothing but a recipe for mischief, particularily when I'm on a roll, writing a whole bunch of new stuff, adding changes bit by bit, because they can be used to trip me up (with permanent affect, as far as I can tell?). ] already got me blocked for a non-existent 3RR once, that's because I'm productive, not because I've ever been an edit-warrior. But I can live with them with no problem.
::Ultimately, the project will have to decide whether inserting good information into I/P articles is acceptable or not, and, if some of it is to be allowed, where the red-lines have to be drawn. With the help of my mentor, I now realise that a ]'s biography cannot use the word "massacre" for a particular event (even when it's being implied he lied over it) and the very well known web-site are guilty of having an and cannot be cited for the of a Rabbi. Knowing of these red-lines will definitely make my life easier and less stressful in future. Actually, I can wriggle round the immediate effect of the last restriction, because the interview I wish to use is on the web-site, and for some reason the second site *is* acceptable. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br />
'''Option re: POV-related conduct'''. In answer my Q1 above, Geni doesn't know quite how to handle what Geni terms "POV pushing" by PR. Presumably, this includes PR's input on Talk pages and how he handles user conduct issues. How might Geni handle PR's POV-related conduct? One option would be to require Geni and PR to use a tighter mentoring arrangement. E.g., PR's editing/Talk-ing could be vetted in advance by the mentor. I myself had proposed a very ]. At the time, PR rejected this -- and who can blame him, esp since it wasn't stipulated by the CSN/ArbCom. Still, a mentoring arrangement along these lines, perhaps not as strict, deserves consideration. ] | ] 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed an editor named {{u|Bgsu98}} who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by ] before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)<br />I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at ]. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.


I should note that {{u|Bgsu98}} doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated ] (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (]). One can really wonder why he does this.
:] As the chat inflates, all purchase on origins and their contextual reality is swamped by hearsay and the ''habitus animorum'', as Tacitus would put it. Back to first principles, then.


P.S. More information is here: ]. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of ]. It seems that no one acted on this change until {{u|Bgsu98}} came.
:User Karl Meier raised this complaint, using evidence of what he says (I am surprised) was his casual encounter of PR's edit and POV statements in discussions on two issues with me. The whole gravamen of this trial's accusations rests on a representation made by a third party (whose own page reveals an esteem for two editors whose work is strongly anti-Islamic) who out of the blue takes his complaint to the Misplaced Pages community. Two pieces of evidence adduced are false, as I have explained elsewhere here. Two POV-pushing pieces to me were the result of a request to Pr to address private disagreements to me on the relevant pages, since I on principle have not enabled my email option. I like to keep everything in the public purview, unlike many, who coordinate strategies for controversial pages. I have deep disagreements with PR but personally have found nothing problematical in the way PR challenges my edits. I am afraid that this whole procedure looks like a kangaroo court, pushed by people with records decidedly adversative, on political grounds, to PR, and has degenerated into farcical wikilawyering and forum shopping, when the gravamen of the charges relates to a private on line exchange of edits and opinions between me and PR. ] 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.
::Hi Nishidani. As the mentor, Geni's concerns are significant and deserve to be addressed. Those concerns go beyond Karl's complaint (I'm pretty sure). Unless you're saying on procedural grounds that we should set aside Geni's concerns, then a productive outcome here would be to deal with the mentorship. (If you are a supporter of PR, then this would be to your advantage, since the failure of the mentorship leaves PR worse off vis-a-vis the CSN/ArbCom.) My 2 cents, take care, ] | ] 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't believe that ]'s mentorship has failed, I'd suggest quite the reverse, it's been highly successful. Everyone of my "contentious" edits has either been explained (6 or more?), apologised for (1) or arbitrated by Geni (3). I wasn't actually satisfied by Geni's conclusions (as I've explained), but I abided by them with no complaint (well, until I was forced to prove that I thought Geni had been biased against me, not biased in favour of me). Despite having said goodbye to Geni, awarded her a Barnstar, and having greeted an alternative mentor, I'd be very happy to stay working with the arrangement as before. All I (and you) need request is that my mentor (old or new) not be harrassed by people who just want me out of the project at all costs on content dispute grounds. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while {{u|Bgsu98}} has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (). --] (]) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by ]===
If whatever ] is really disruptive (I haven't loaded a single diff and am completely ignorant on the mater), sanctions can be imposed. ] may be better for this as ] is undergoing deletion.


:as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @] or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @] who is nominating based on community consensus. ] ] 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Please put my case to the RFAR, the ]. <s>Actually, what I really want is full consideration of, and a conclusion to the earlier ArbCom case that bears my name, which I am confident was either not about me, or else was a gross abuse of process.</s> My of being dragged in front of ArbCom apparently contributed to an unpublished conclusion which improved the operation of the project. Clearly, if I wrestle in the mud, the ArbCom (like the community) will be forced to hold their noses and probably cut up quite rough - but I am confident they'll judge me much, much cleaner than anyone I've wrestled with.
::"''However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules.''"<br />— They don't meet ], but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet ]. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require ], so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.<br />(I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --] (]) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:To all those who hate my participation - keep your chins up. I may appear to be extremely careful, aggravating you terribly without ever (yet) damaging articles or being in real breach of the word or intent of policy - but I am only human. Keep plugging away and you're bound to trip me up and force me into some capital breach one day.
:::Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, ] has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like ] without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Lastly, back in May, a top member of the project tried hard to persuade me to let the first ArbCom drop. I defied him/her and begged for the procedure to go ahead. In future I promise to be more cooperative and have more faith in you/others to act in all our interests. Whether I will ever stop making waves is difficult to say, but that's not my intention. I really am here to put good information (and tolerable writing) into articles. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::{{re|Star Mississippi|Liz}} A ], a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "]" (])? Cause I was searching for sources for ] and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.<br />Here: .<br />And again, it was {{u|Bgsu98}} who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting ]: "''There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale''." --] (]) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::After looking at ], I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --] (]) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I have also found an interview with ]: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates ], otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no ] research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".<br />Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping {{u|BeanieFan11}} and {{u|Doczilla}}. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --] (]) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:] claims to be polite, yet wrote : ''"random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom"''. Pinging ] who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.
:He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From ]: ''"By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated ] 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"''
:I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. ] seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. ] ] 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:*C'mon, ], civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:I apologize, ]; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. ] ] 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*Here's my take, ]. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @] to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @] I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @] is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @] and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @] ] (]) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*::Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while {{u|Bgsu98}} directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)<br />Also, a note to admins: Can it be that {{u|Bgsu98}} finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".<br />And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --] (]) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::@] I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @] pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @], making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @]'s comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. ] (]) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::: I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::: Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::: According to , "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::::@]
:::*:::::Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people."
:::*:::::No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion.
:::*:::::If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep.
:::*:::::I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon.
:::*:::::All the best to everyone involved. ] (]) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*:::] wrote the following in his original complaint: ''”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.”'' I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met ], the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. ] ] 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*::::OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...<p>(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.<p>(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's ''exactly'' the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.<p>(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. ] 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::“Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. ] ] 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria ({{tq|What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.}}), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. —
:] (]) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a ]. ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ] (]) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::simple question.
* I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often ''really'' poor; many are simply {{tq|Non-notable figure skater}}, which doesn't say much of anything. ] (]) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::are you ever going to raise the ''"history of harassing people on their talk pages"'' issue again? because <u>i don't see you've either addressed</u> this one or anything else raised for that matter. in fact you repeated the attack on a conversation not involving you.<sup></sup>
*:I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. ] ] 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*::And @], you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::] ought to be reason for an instant indef block. How can he get away with trying to drive an editor of an article like that? ] 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*:::But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at ]. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --] (]) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Please start a user RFC or something (yes I know RFC is a dead process). This isn't being productive in my opinion. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*::::The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide ] for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created '''seventeen years ago''' -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. ] 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why do we need a RFC to determine that strongly hinting that someone is a war criminal to gain the upper hand in a dispute is a gross blockable offense under ] and (ought to be so) under ]? ] 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*::::: The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – ''and'' many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While ''you'' may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You're re-treading a dispute which was extensively discussed at ] and resulted in a binding remedy - ie, the issue was closed. Jaakobou's persistent repetition of these charges may have confused you. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*:::Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("]" and "]".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.<br />But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.<br />Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)<br />By the way, I have tried searching on what was once ], but the news search doesn't work anymore. (.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::EconomicsGuy "War Criminals" aren't banned from editing wikipedia provided they stay in line with our policies and Guidelines. If he violates any Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies that is one thing but we are not an international court to trial him over "War Crimes". I do not know the details but please focus on whatever wikipedia policies or guidelines he violated instead. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*::::What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. ] (]) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Actually nobody is saying that somebody should be blocked for being a war criminal. During a long dispute on ] PR at one point asked Jaakobou, a male Israeli Jew (ie, subject to mandatory military service) whether he'd been in the Jenin area in April 2002. He kept asking a couple of times, and finally posted a rather strange rant on my talk page, to the effect that Jaakobou should confirm or deny whether he was a war criminal, and think carefully because he might wind up in the Hague. This served as the launching point for another pitchforks-and-torches "ban PR!" campaign, which resulted in binding mentorship. EconGuy seems to be suggesting that the "war criminal question" should have been grounds for an instant perma-block, which is contrary to the decision of the CSN (which is not known for its moderation anyway...) <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
*:::I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::the CSN sanction for the "War criminal" issue was "enforced mentorship" as a "last chance" - i see no justification in (1) asking a "male israeli jew" if he's a war criminal as some way to bully an editor out of an article. (2) proclaiming the issue was closed when it's clearly not. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
===Arbitrary break===
:::::::::Right, I was talking about blocking PR not Jaakobou which given my comment would make no sense. One question though. Given those questions he asked Jaakobou do you still wonder why PR keeps appearing on ANI? Could it possibly be that PR might be the problem and not everyone else? As for mentorship I'll just say that whoever thinks you can reform someone who makes such serious personal remarks rather than comment on the content instead should reread ]. There is ''no such thing'' as a reformed troll, mentorship or not. If I or anyone else had asked PR if he was a terrorist or not 3 times I would have been perma banned for sure. ] 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
{{Od}} ...{{Tpq|editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes}}. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years.]/]/] (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC)
:RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Liz}} The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".<br />A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".<br />Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per ]", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the ] revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:(nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) ] 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{re|Ravenswing}}, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.<br />And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.<br />I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --] (]) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Please be careful with the ], Moscow Connection. --] 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. ] (]) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. ] 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue.
:::::::Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions: {{tq|Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started.}} ] (]) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::And ] is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines ''after'' SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. ] (]) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::] example of ignoring SIGCOV ''already present'' in the article. ] (]) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{Ping|GiantSnowman}} {{Ping|Black Kite}} ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. ] (]) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::] is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. ] (]) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. ]] 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::] and ] is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised ] and , although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message {{tq|Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior.}} ] (]) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And here are ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes ], close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? ]] 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. ]] 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: If you go to 10 May 2024 , you get exactly '''50''' nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per . ] (]) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. ]] 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that ] provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?<p>So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. ] 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, ''especially'' these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. ''However'', I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like ], tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. ] </span>]] 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @] and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @] without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @] basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @]. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @] probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @] is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @] we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @] ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking {{u|Star Mississippi}} to undelete the "]" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at ]. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of {{u|Kvng}}, noticed: {{tq|No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG}}, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.<br />You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*I've decided to save "]" (]) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. ] (]) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:*"{{tq|You don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what}}"<br />— What I do is called ]. What you just did by claiming you can read Martian, I honestly don't know.<br />I've started this discussion because I saw the user's 45 nominations at ] and that scared me a lot. --] (]) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:*:It's called ironic humour and, with everything going on in the world right now, if a Misplaced Pages AFD scared you a lot then you are obviously in the very fortunate position to have so few worries. Anyway I'm moving on to spend my time more productively. I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavours. ] (]) 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**I appreciate your input and insight. As I told ] earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.<br>I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! ] ] 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
**20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --] (]) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:While I do not know whether @] should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with {{tq|I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for.}} @]. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. ] ] 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, and . ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. ] (]) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::"As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that ] is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) ] ] 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
** If even that's true, no none came. (No one of the whole two.) And Bgsu98 did the same by pinging his like-minded AfD colleague. (He pinged him immediately.) --] (]) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* As a fellow ] participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that {{ping|Bgsu98}} convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion ''is'' warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--] ] 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend ''everyone'' take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, ] states the following: {{tq|Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.}} So, I'd ask {{ping|Moscow Connection}} to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.{{pb}}But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: ''a normal Google search'', or a ''Google Books search'', or a ''Google News search'', or a ''Google News archive search''? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for '''expanding ] to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects'''. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly ''recommend'' more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but ''required''? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are '''significantly''' based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.{{pb}}Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely ]). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does '''not''' require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion ''at the appropriate place'' if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
** I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for ]'s name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet ], so unless you can show that there are ''multiple'' instances of ''significant'' coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: Here's a link to the book: . (I've tried and tried, but I don't know how to add "bks" to the Google Books search URL.) --] (]) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: A search for "李宣潼" on Google News returned this article: and a couple more. The one I linked looks very solid, it is a full-fledged biography. (The AfD discussion is here: ]. As usual, the rationale is: {{tq|Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements.}}) --] (]) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: And one more article → about Li Xuantong and her partner ] (also nominated for deletion by Bgsu98). It's like a print magazine article + interview, looks "massive". --] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: Another example: ].<br />A simple Google News search for "김유재 2009" returns a lot. I didn't look too far, but I found two lengthy articles about her and her twin sister on the first page (, ) and voted "keep".<br />(I would also note that there are already some AfD regulars present in that discussion. But no one has googled her name.) --] (]) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**:: OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: ]. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.) --] (]) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (], ], ]) - dates back to ]. In fact, last year ] (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with ]. ]@] 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. {{ping|Bgsu98}} It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are ''multiple'' examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that ] already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care ''why'' they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.{{pb}}If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.{{pb}}All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I've provided some 20 examples as well. ] (]) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --] (]) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Potential company editing? ==
=== Clarify and evaluate proposal(s) at hand ===
{{atop|1=Closing by OP request. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Bouchra Filali}}
*{{articlelinks|Djellaba}}
The user ] uploaded ] to the page ]. They share a name with a fashion company and seem to have replaced the original image on the article with a product from their company (see revision 1268097124]). I reverted their edit and warned them, but due to my concern, and following advice from an administrator on the wikimedia community discord, I am reporting this here as well. I have also asked for advice on what to do with the commons file, and will be filing any necessary reports there. ] 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:They have only made one edit on this project which was adding an image to an article, it looks like they uploaded the image on the Commons. Have you tried talking about your issues with them on their Commons user talk page, ]? This doesn't seem like it's a problem for the English Misplaced Pages. We don't even know if they'll be back to make a second edit. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I asked the commons folks on discord and it seems that, since they uploaded an image that they own, all is well. I have to admit that I was a little hasty here, I've never used this noticeboard before. Feel free to close this if you feel there is nothing more to discuss, I'll monitor the user in question. ] 06:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Smm380 and logged out editing ==
There are multiple proposals on the table. Perhaps it would be wise if folks -- esp those NOT fairly involved parties -- could help sort out the proposals here and evaluate them. From what I can tell, the options range (1) Karl's original request to (2) suggestions to move to another process (e.g., RfC or ArbCom), to (3) dismissing the matter. In addition, I peronally would like to highlight the importance of evaluating (4) the enforcement proposal of Geni (PR's mentor) above, if only because Geni's role is mandated by and presumably should be backed up by the community.
*{{userlinks|Smm380}}
*{{IPlinks|195.238.112.0/20}}
I have this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the article ] both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from ] (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for example edit by Smm380 and edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to make as an IP.


In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing to unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this. ] (]) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
So, do you need more information to evaluate these options? If so, how would you like the info presented? If not, based on the info available, which options do you consider most reasonable? Thank you. ] | ] 23:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


:I noticed the concerns raised regarding edits made both from my account and an IP address, and I’d like to clarify that this was neither intentional nor malicious. I simply forgot to log into my account while making those edits.
*At the very least, PR needs to be topic banned from Mid-east articles for trolling and pov-pushing. If s/he ''isn't'' a ], then "Palestine Remembered" will have the chance to learn to abide by WP standards without editing his/her hot button topics. Mentorship was supposed to stop PR's disruption, but it hasn't. ] 01:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:I apologize if this caused any confusion. My sole intention was to improve content related to Ukrainian history, a topic I am deeply passionate about.
**If PalestineRemembered is going to be banned from Mid-east articles for pov-pushing, so does Jaakobou. Both editors are coming from diametrically opposing POVs, and removing one of them might mean the articles are edit warred on a bit less, but they will be completely lop-sided. ] ]] 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Regarding the delayed response to your messages, I sincerely apologize. I hadn’t noticed the notifications until recently, as I was unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages’s messaging system works. Now that I understand it better, I’ll ensure to respond more promptly in the future.
***'''why don't we just block me instead?'''. Number 57, just because we argued about the designation of ] and you think it's "clearly not israeli territory", does ''NOT'' automatically make me "diametrically opposing" PR's POV or PR's behavior. well, (at the time when your friend was under CSN for a possible community ban), so i request you avoid using this to promote your pro-palestinian POV by defending a person who removes (telegraph.co.uk, the Observer, Azure Magazine, nationalreview.com, ADL and the TIME) and creates pages like ] after being here for over a year. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:I truly appreciate the valuable work you do to maintain the quality and reliability of Misplaced Pages. I will make sure to contribute responsibly and stay logged in during my future edits. ] (]) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*****In the edit Jaakobou refers to, PR rewrote a sentence that was grossly POV-pushing, and a serious misrepresentation of source material: ''"The battle attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that ] was committed and as a result of inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials and Jenin residents."'' PR's edit did indeed entail the removal of "6 good sources," but those six sources had been misused, and PR's rewrite (by no means perfect in its own right) introduced good sources of his own. In other words, this is a content dispute. Jaakobou's case for the banning/blocking of PR is equal parts content disputes and once-resolved but newly exhumed grudges.--] 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
******how were each of the 6 sources misused exactly? and let's say they were. does this excuse his insertion of that template? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*******Jaakobou, discussions on the use of sources are content disputes not relevant to ANI. The template you mention was a simple misunderstanding of the use and purpose of templates; PalestineRemembered blanked that template more than two weeks ago. You were already told by the administrator who deleted the template that it was irrelevant (]), so I'd urge you to drop it. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
********that is ot what the archiving admin stated. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
****Firstly, this is not because we argued about Ariel; it is because you are a relentless edit-warring POV-pusher who has assumed control of several controversial Middle East-related articles such as ] and ]. I am not defending PR here and he is not my friend in any way, but I am saying that if one POV-pusher is banned from certain topics, so should others be. As for accusing me of pro-Palestinian bias again, have you any evidence to prove this? ] ]] 13:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*****I think the issue of Ariel, which we both know will never be disengaged, is fair enough example that you have a certain POV on the topic. no one is asking to ban G-Dett, Nishidani, Eleland, Avi, Isarig, you, or any other person with POV here - i really don't see how you equate <u>his policy breaking activity</u> with that of the "normative POV pushers" and add the equivalent of "it's all or nothing!". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
******Whilst I don't deny having a POV on Ariel in "real life" (indeed, I'm sure anyone who knows anything about it does), on Misplaced Pages I stick to using established facts. The fact is that Israel has not annexed any area of the West Bank except East Jerusalem, and therefore there is no way in which Ariel could be said to be in Israel. Your claim that Ariel is in Israel, or weasling that it is not possible to say it isn't, is thus a blatant violation of ] and puts you firmly in the nationalist Israeli camp. ] ]] 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*******it just means that we have difference in POVs, it makes us normative POV editors (something you vehemently deny) - on point: you're not addressed <u>any</u> of PR's breaches of policy and only wanted to include everyone on the same page. i've not seen you make the equivalent "let's include everyone on the same page" claim when ] was in clear breach of policy.<sup></sup> <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
********No, the point is that I stick to using facts on Misplaced Pages, whilst you stick to pushing your POV. Plain and simple. As for User:M.V.E.i., I am not familiar with his/her edits, so why should I get involved in that case? ] ]] 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::*I'm familiar with that case, and I find Jaakobou's comparison to be utterly outrageous. The user was blocked for posting multiple extremely racist rants. Not racist in the Jaakobou-ian sense of "he said Zionism is bad, so he's racist", but in the sense of explicitly denying that a given ethnic group is human at all, and are in fact "HORSE SHIT" who should all be "shot dead". PR has never done anything remotely like this, as Jaakobou well knows. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


== Another not here IP ==
**In Karl Meier's list of questionable material two pieces of 'evidence' clearly reflect a lack of knowledge of the debate. He was patently wrong in saying PR's edit on 'death' constituted bad behaviour. It corresponded to a problem in the text, still unresolved. (2)He was wrong on the Baruch Kaplan evidence, which is reliable since it is posted on a site, by Neturei Karta, as well, and the charge that this is a hate site is untrue. (3) PR's remonstrations with me, were simply that, remonstrations I was at liberty to ignore. ''Particularly since PR requested the possibility some days earlier that I enable the email function. I didn't, preferring all communications, personal or otherwise, to remain in the public domain''. Those two passages were personal communications, which I welcome,and for which I bear responsibility because I inadvertently forced PR to use a public page for what was intended as a private communication.
{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{User|2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166}} is altering another users posts to insert political commentary ] as well as making PA's, with a clear statement they do not intend to stop ], and edit warring over it as well. ] (]) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Now past 3rr reinsertion of their alteration of another users post. So its now vandalism. ] (]) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
**I do not therefore understand why PR's challenges to me can be adduced by third parties, since I found them innocuous. Nota Bene: here PR's adversaries have not been offended, but are jumping on basically a difference of opinion between the undersigned and PR. I have not raised a complaint, since the whole matter is petty, and I ask myself regularly, why are so many people not a party to our dialogue so keen to harvest this trivia in order to get PR banned from participating on pages they themselves work on, with undisguised POVs no less visible than PR's, if more competently, in some instances, disguised? This looks very much like a nasty pretextual challenge by adversaries exploiting other people's material to gang up against an editor they personally dislike.] 07:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


As well as this tit for tat report ]. ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
**I therefore ask that one suspend this whole matter, while I enable my email: for my refusal to do so is directly responsible for PR's use of a public page for what was a private communication, in the only two pieces of 'evidence' which remain as marginally valid for deliberating on whether PR has exceeded the limits. ] 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


:IP blocked for edit warring. --] 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
==="Mentor" Geni under attack (by PR)===
{{abot}}
Worth noting is that almost every person who has ever "defended" me, plus every person who has ever offered to "mentor" me, and even some people I was disagreeing with (but in a collegiate fashion, so it's not always been obvious), have suffered some form of (sometimes very nasty) personal attack. I was pondering how much I'd document this - seeing the additional harrassment this discussion has generated, perhaps it's a good thing I don't quote anyone in this respect. However, I think you get the message - the three examples below are just the most prominent people of the last 8 weeks when this practice, if anything, has been less marked than before.
=====Geni attacked=====
My mentor, ] is being attacked, here and on a special page set up for the purpose (it's been deleted). Harrassment of this kind is atrocious - I've had lots of exchanges with Geni, none of them mutually congratulatory. Because of the harrassment of him/her, I was forced to select two of our disagreements and accuse him (rather credibly) of having acted ideologically - not in order to be personal, just to even out the balance. I'm not sure whether I've been a good mentee or not, but Geni has apparently been forced into a corner and had to publicly tell one of my accusers to stop making a nuisance of himself.
=====HG <s>attacked</s> suffers allegations against his good-faith=====
] might have been my mentor but (despite my regard for him), we were not agreeing on anything and I rejected him. His mediation on an article around that time was rejected with the absurd accusation of his being "much too buddy-buddy with PR".


== Heritage Foundation planning to doxx editors ==
=====A mentor blocked=====
{{atop|result=Closing to prevent a split discussion. The most central discussion about this is currently held at ]. —] 22:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
A possible mentor "SpecialJane" was found to be a sock-puppet and was blocked. Perhaps it was necessary to block this ]? I don't know, but it's bound to have cast a chill on anyone preparing to act in a collegiate way towards me. (This blocking was touted around as if it reflected on me, casting further chill!).
See ]. Various sources are beginning to report on this, see , . It seems they plan to “identify and target Misplaced Pages editors abusing their position by analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting,” and “engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure,” and “push specific topics to expose more identity-related details.” An IP user on the discussion page says "they intend to add malicious links (sources) that will set cookies, grab your IP, and get tracking going for your device. This has likely already started. Be careful, there are lots of ways to hide where a link goes." ] (]) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Taken from Specialjane's userpage: "This user is a sock puppet of Dereks1x, and has been blocked indefinitely." A proven sockpuppet being blocked by an administrator per policy. Do you believe that WP administrators should not enforce policy? ] 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:I think there's a far more productive discussion going on at ]. ] (]) 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::You have placed this harrassing nonsense here twice. I have on this conduct, below, the first official complaint I have ever made on anyone. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::A friendly reminder: It's always a good time to review the strength and age of account passwords, plus consider two-factor verification. The world is constantly changing... ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have made my comment in that subsection. Please feel free to read it at your leisure. Cordially, ] 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Isn't doxing a federal/punishable offense in ten states (more or less), including DC? If they grab the information of or out a minor, that can easily be taken on as a form of harassment and won't end well. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No doubt the Trump adminstration will make pursuing such cases a high priority. ]] 22:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm unsure why this isn't a WMF issue, due to potential legal and safeguarding issues. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The WMF has been made aware. ]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Truffle457 ==
=====Same throughout my experience=====
{{atop|result=Editor blocked indefinitely. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
It is less obvious now than it was, but every discussion concerning my participation has brought out lots of people who have wished to "defend me", usually resulting in attacks on their good faith. Some of those people are almost certainly watching now, but don't wish to join in because of what they've suffered before - and an increasing suspicion they'll be on the losing side, since with tactics this nasty, I'm bound to be forced off the project one way or another, no matter what the justice of the case.
{{user|Truffle457 }}
=====Pointless attacks on me=====
While I'm at it, and in case you're new to the attempts to stop me, please note that, with some 3,000 edits in a year, only one of those edits, ever, is generally agreed to have been offensive (and it's been dealt with). You'll not see lists of questionable diffs I've made, no such lists have *ever* been presented. This is in startling contrast to disciplinary cases against (all?) other editors (ever?). Note how, in this case, the accusations against me concern my differences with ], who rejects this accusatory chorus. The new allegations against me really are trivial, just as all but one of the old allegations were. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


=== Brief comment by HG ===
''(Regarding PR's subsection about HG, reply moved:)'' I agree ''(w/Kyaa)'' that I have ''not'' been attacked. Per my , I ask that PR <s>strikeout</s> (not delete) the above heading and the second sentence. (''Note: Also, I did not propose to mediate, in the formal sense, so it is inaccurate to say that my participation was "rejected."'') Thanks. ] | ] 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Take your intrusive demands out of this portion of my evidence, please. There is no question that the allegations laid at your good faith (whether they amounted to an attack or not), are part of a pattern of harrassment against anyone who attempts to deal with me in a collegiate fashion, as I believed you were doing. If it is not your intention that I be free to defend myself at this AN/I without harrassment, or you believe it right that anyone in these processes "defending" others be harrassed, please come straight out and say so. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Hopefully, most folks would ] that I do welcome PR to defend himself, and did not imply otherwise. I'm merely disagreeing here with PR with the aspect of his defense concerning me. ] | ] 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Please take your tanks off my lawn. I'm a highly cooperative person, who has always done everything you've asked, and there is no reason or excuse for the vandalising harrassment of my entries to this evidence page. Please lean on "buddy-buddy" to do the same. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Gee, PR, I did move it. I think what's happening is that you expect your comments above to be left alone, as they would be for an Evidence statement in ArbCom proceedings. In AN/I, commenting on such sections is usually acceptable etiquette. Still, I may be mistaken, and out of respect for your wishes, I've placed a dividing subheading leaving your section intact. I am not trying to harrass you or vandalize your comments. ''I'm sorry if it appeared that way.'' Ok? I can appreciate that this is an unpleasant experience and I'm not trying to make it any harder for you. Please sit tight and give folks some space to think this thru. Take care, ] | ] 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Thankyou, ], I knew I could depend on you. Now, what do I have to do to stop other people vandalising my contributions to the AN/I that bears my name and harrassing me on it? Harrassment means "making life unpleasant with unwanted and in-your-face comments" - which is what I've been getting. What are you going to do about it? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:What exactly is an attack there? I raised a valid concern that HG may not be a suitable mediator. I did not attack him, I just questioned his impartiality. HG understands my concerns, it is beyond time that you put away the victim card and comprehend that the world is not aligned against you. ] 11:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
<snip, comment moved below. ] | ] 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)>
:Taken from Specialjane's userpage: "This user is a sock puppet of Dereks1x, and has been blocked indefinitely." A proven sockpuppet being blocked by an administrator per policy. Do you believe that WP administrators should not enforce policy? ] 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::You have placed this harrassing nonsense here twice. I have on this conduct, below, the first official complaint I have ever made on anyone. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I have made my comment in that subsection. Please feel free to read it at your leisure. Cordially, ] 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
'''Apology from PR''' - it was wrong of me to suggest that ] was "attacked" with the comment "too buddy-buddy with PR", because he has previously objected to my describing it as an "attack". I have struck out the offending word (which never appeared in the body of my entry). Like many others, HG wishes (and is entirely right) to reject being dragged into the mud-pit the way I've been dragged in, even when comments which are clearly prejudicial about him are levelled.


However, I'd be interested to know what HG thinks of another comment that appeared ''"this is no joke, two mentors already allowed repeated violations"'' which I think is aimed at him. (It's false, HG was never my mentor, but I cannot see who else it can refer to). May I refer to this as an "attack" on you, or is it just an allegation against your good faith? I'll point this question out to HG, though I believe he will be unable to respond for some hours, I trust he'd prefer to comment on it here. He may prefer to ignore it and delete this rider to my apology, I have no objection to him doing that. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:PR, I appreciate your apology and the strikeout. But it still feels like you're trying to milk the "buddy-buddy" comment for more that it's worth. (1) Kyaa wasn't alleging "bad faith" (i.e., my trying to hurt Misplaced Pages) -- but merely concerned that I'm too much on your side to mediate on Jenin. As I've always said, I feel more honored (or humored) than insulted by Kyaa's impression. (2) Right after your apology, you continue to do it. You say Kyaa's remarks were "prejudicial" -- that's overstated and, I'd add, Kyaa hasn't repeated his words elsewhere, as you have. Further, you talk about what "HG wishes" regarding you being "dragged into the mud-pit." Please, PR, don't write about what ''I wish'', write about ''your own'' wishes. I am willing to be "dragged" into focusing on you and your situation, but I'd like to do it efficiently and calmly. By exaggerating and dramatizing (e.g., mud-pit), you both worsen your own case and you make the work of "outside" parties harder. (3) Likewise, with the "two mentors" quote, it looks like you are trying to provoke more drama. For heaven's sake, PR, stop trying to find more "attacks" against me (or you). You're acting as if] -- however, the opposite it true. At this juncture, your best defense is to not be offensive, not go on the offense, and not to take offense. When I said please sit tight, I meant, wait patiently, don't stir any conflicts. PR, you asked above, "what am I going to do about it?" What I am doing is giving you the best advice I can, to tell you what I think is in ''your best interests''. Sit tight and simply watch, simply trust, what I and other folks are going to do about the situation. Maybe you won't like the outcome, but I don't think your current line of agitated activity will strengthen your defense. Be well, take care, ] | ] 01:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


=== Comment by GHcool ===


I don't even know what to call this. This user has few edits but most are like this. ] (]) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't look like this has been brought up yet, but PalestineRemembered has been exceptionally obnoxious on ] and participated in some edit warring in ]. I won't go into the whole story, but I'd like to add for everybody's consideration the following two falsehoods that PalestineRemembered has been unethically and dishonestly promoting and soapboxing virtually non-stop for the past month or so:
:This is a new user with only a single level I notice on their page. I've issued a level II caution for using talk pages as a forum and added a welcome template. If this persists, stronger measures may be needed. -] (]) 22:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<br>
:], I'd advise talking with an editor, through words, not templates, before filing a complaint at ANI. That's a general recommendation unless there is active vandalism going on. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''The Accusation''': "We seem to have quotations in ] article] from 'historians' even less credible than '']]." -- ]. ]. 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::His comments are disturbing tbh. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''The Reality''': ] is the notorious English ] and pseudo-historian exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with ] and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes him seriously as an academic and a historian. The research of the historians referenced in the ] (namely ] and ] on the "traditional" side, and ] on the "revisionist" side) are controversial, but no reasonable person would claim that any of the above historians would be exposed as frauds and racists in a court of law, nor do they associate with underground groups dedicated to racism, race-supremacy, xenophobia, and violence. The comparison is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. Since this accusation has been made, the weight given to the above scholars in "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" has shifted greatly and for the better. Now the "traditional" side is represented mostly by the research of ] with supplemental material from Katz and Schechtman. The "revisionist" side is still represented mostly by Morris with supplemental material (in my opinion, too much material) by ]. Other historians' research that defy such categorization are also included prominently. The article is much better now than it was in the beginning September 2007, but the accusation and response above are still relevent. Not surpringly, as of this writing, PalestineRemembered continues to compare reliable pro-Israeli historians with the writings of ] while calling them "hate sources." On October 13, 2007, he disgracefully applied this comparison to the ].
::The user's response to {{U|Ad Orientem}}'s warning demonstrates that they have no insight into their misconduct and are ].--] (]) 23:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<br>
:::{{notdone|Indeffed}} per WP:CIR. -] (]) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''The Accusation''': "Israel is expelling those who dare to criticise it (eg Pappe)." -- ]. . 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, by having a conversation, you discerned that CIR applied. Some communication, I think, is better than silence at least when you are trying to make sense of an unclear situation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''The Reality''': Israel is a free country with laws concerning ], ], and ] similar to the United States. Israeli politicians, editorialists, and reporters use this right every single day in their newspapers. '']'' is especially well known for its criticism of Israeli policies, but Israel's other two leading newspapers ('']'' and '']'') also criticize Israel virtually daily. All three of these newspapers are translated into English and are readily available on the Internet. There is an organization in Israel called ] that is devoted to documenting and criticizing abuses by the Israeli government. ] ministers of the left and right wing regularly criticize Israel as strongly as ] ever did. None of the above have any fear of being deported or "expelled" from Israel. The standards for ] are also similar to that of the United States as evidenced by the ]. The case of ] is a strange one, but it is a downright lie to say that he was "expelled" from Israel because of his controversial research. The truth is much less dramatic. Pappe supported a British academic boycott of Israeli academics in 2005. In response, the ] suggested (but did not force) that he apply the boycott to his own self since he is also an Israeli academic. Two full years after that, Pappe voluntarily left Israel and took a position at the ]. As far as I know, Pappe has never been arrested or tried for his views by Israeli authorities or the University of Haifa.<br>
{{abot}}
--] 18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm reluctant to comment on this because it so confused, the evidence presented does not concern anything that was raised by this AN/I, or anything that has been added later. The edit-warring allegation is laughable, there are a series of content-disputes, which GHcool is probably "losing" (but not to me). He's been editing there at 4 times the rate that I've been doing. Perhaps he's fed up that a pro-Israel editor has with me that Schechtman is a hate-source - but then, isn't that what Talk is supposed to be about? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


== YZ357980, second complaint ==
===Inanity===
I have again reverted {{u|YZ357980}}'s insertion of an image of dubious copyright; change of Somali Armed Forces native-name to an incorrect format; and violation of ] at ] - see ] which had another editor fix the incorrect file format. I believe this editor is ] and not willing to communicate and I would request administrator attention to this matter. Kind regards ] ] 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:For the record, that image has been on Commons since 2015 and was made by a different user. That said, YZ357980 continues to make these borderline disruptive edits and has ''never'' posted on an article talk page or a user talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace until communication improves, as it is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::1. Thankyou!! Much appreciated!!
::2. Yes I was aware of the status of those images, but I repeatedly told YZ357980 that it was of borderline copyright and WP had to follow US copyright law. I have managed to get the equivalent Iraqi ones deleted; I will go after the Somali ones to try to get them deleted.
::3. ''Someone'' (an anon IP) posted on his talkapage as if replying, see . Please feel free to reconsider your actions should you wish, but I continue to believe YZ357980 is NOTHERE. ] ] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Given which is clearly YZ not logged in, the block has been changed to full indef. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== My reverted edit at List of Famicom Disk System games ==
Forgive the strong titling, but being familiar with PR's long history of blocks based on the most ludicrous of pretenses, I am quite shocked to see the campaigning against him continuing here once again. Despite having read and re-read the entire discussion here, I cannot make heads or tales of what this latest attempt to permanently ban PR is based on. There is no evidence to back any of the complaints being put forward, old issues that have already been the subject of community discussions and decisions are being re-aired as though they are open and pending issues, and the entire thread is riddled with personal attacks that do nothing to improve the project and indeed seem to have forgotten the project altogether. With respect, I ask that specific diffs providing evidence of a specific problem not dealt with in earlier discussions be represented here. Failing that, I ask that the entire case be closed. This is waste of time, energy and good-will and I see no reason to subject PR to any further srcutiny in view of the lack of any solid complaint. Note that if such evidence is provided and the community feels it is worthy of further discussion, the appropriate venue for this would be either a User:RfC or ArbComm. With respect, ] 12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=At worst, this deserves a {{tl|minnow}}. This is, at heart, a content dispute, and ] is the place to discuss it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi


I added {{tl|clear}} to the top of table of ] to make the table use the whole horizontal space. I did it according to other list of video games articles and reception section of some video games articles to help the table list look better or not reception table to conflict with references (double column references more specifically).
::'Failing that, I ask that the entire case be closed.' ]
:::I second the request. This is farcical to put the best light on it, and slightly sinister when those who promote this banning campaign are extraneous to the original charges, which concern only myself and two pages where I and PR happened to disagree on two edits.] 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


However {{ping|NakhlaMan}} reverted my edit and with a rude language called it "UGLIER" and calls it waste of too much space.
=== Kyaa the Catlord harrassing me on this page ===
It is highly misleading to imply that ] is some kind of uninvolved editor applying the usual standards of the project. Everyone seeing this must be puzzled how an AN/I on something so damaging to the processes of the project can be archived without action in less than an hour. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Actually I read EliminatorJR's closing remark as criticism of both yours as well as my remark on that thread which is also why I disengaged. You should try that sometime rather than attack anyone who dares to speak to you or edit ] part of the debate. It is getting very obvious that you are comletely unable to absorb and constructively use any criticism of your actions. Your attack against HG above is clear evidence of this. When on trial for assault don't punch your own defense team. ] 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
{{archive top}}
::Hi. There is nothing misleading. Nobody is claiming EconomicsGuy is uninvolved. ] 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
<b>This does not appear to be achieving anything, and none of the participants are exactly advancing their cause. </b> <b>]</b> 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


With my edit, it adds just a small space to the top of list heading but the table could be read easier and uses the whole available space. ] (]) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] is harrassing me on this very page by into the middle of my , and doing something similar on my TalkPage . I request this be dealt with firmly - it is likely part of a pattern of disruption which, amongst other things, destroyed the attempts of an independent person to rescue an ] that is still, 8 weeks later, a train wreck. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:I offer no defense. If an administrator finds my actions to be disruptive, I will submit to any punishment granted for the actions that PR has reported me on. ] 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::This page is an open discussion area within Misplaced Pages. If you add a statement to this page, anybody else on Misplaced Pages including ] is free to comment on your statement. I see nothing nonsensical or improper about Kyaa the Catlord's comments. Whether you agree with them or not the user is entitled to say them. Conversely, your removal of the statements is improper - other people's talk page comments should never be altered or deleted without a strong valid reason and you have no such reason to delete them. You removed the comments twice and they were reverted twice by different users. Further, your calling the comments Kyaa the Catlord "vandalism" is improper. Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism unless they clearly fit the definition ]. These did not. Kyaa the Catlord placed a very mild caution on your talk page to say that you should not have deleted the comments. The notice used, <nowiki>{{test1}}</nowiki>, is the wrong one - it is an automated template that says you did it as an "experiment." In fact, you removed the material deliberately so the correct notice would be a stronger warning.
::By accusing Kyaa the Catlord of "harassing" you, posting "nonsense", and committing "disruption" you are essentially accusing the user of bad faith. I see no evidence of bad faith at all. Please Please ]. Do not accuse other editors of improper behavior without good grounds. I have not had anything to do with you or any articles you edited, as far as I remember, so I will try to stay neutral. However, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you are getting into some personal conflicts here on Misplaced Pages that are unnecessary. If you can concentrate on writing and editing articles, and not worry so much about what other people are doing wrong, you will not have these conflicts. If you are in a mentoring situation then other people have obviously discussed this with you. ] 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Definition of ] - ''"a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."''
:::] has carried out this behaviour 3 times today, even before this last threatening implication I'll be unable to have civilised discourse with anyone anywhere in the project without idiocy being inserted. Please note, this is the first time I've made an official complaint against anyone, Kyaa has done it against me twice, one time getting me blocked with a malicious 3RR report (lifted with exoneration once I'd appealed and it was examined). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Please speedy close this thread as yet another example of pointless trolling. It is this kind of thing I spoke about on the MfD for CSN. Why do we continue to put up with this when it is obvious that PR's worst enemy here is himself. ] 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Note - EconomicsGuy's comment was made while this was an independent section - 14:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


:I don't think this is the right place for this. Yes, the user could have been much nicer on their opinion, but this is too much of an escalation, too fast. I would advise commenting on their talk page, or on the page talk page. Cheers, ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) {{nacmt}}
=== Motion to close ===
:Yes, their edit summary was mildly rude, but this is not actionable, please open a discussion on the article's talk page.]] 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Edit War in Korean clans of foreign origin ==
If there are '''specific, actionable''' claims here, I have been unable to detect them. PR was ordered to mentorship without any specific conditions of that mentorship; therefore, no incident can be said to have violated the conditions. In any case, the hostile free-for-all atmosphere of this posting is accomplishing nothing. Therefore I move that this discussion be closed as '''beyond the scope of ANI'''.
{{Atop|Ger2024 blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
User: Ger2024


{{Userlinks|Ger2024}}
If serious concerns about PR's behavior still exist, they should be taken to ArbCom. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
:My was in line with the above comment 10 sections (not counting the "sub-sub" sections) and 4 days ago. . .still is. ] 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Whatever but please remember that per the discussion on CSN mentorship was meant only as a substitute for a ban if it actually worked. For that reason it is not unreasonable to discuss if the mentorship is working or not and any editor should be allowed to voice their concerns freely. To claim that mentorship was agreed upon unconditionally is a misrepresentation of the debate in question. But as I said; whatever, because this is going to end up on ArbCom sooner or later anyway. To think otherwise is an illusion. ] 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:geez, Eleland. he's only harassed me twice to defend you... and you've done the same, only not as vigurously, to defend him ... you sure you're unable to detect anything actionable?
:i still have't seen PR adress any of the issues mentioned and promise not to repeat. i move to <u>topic-ban PR until a new metor and provisions</u> are clearly stated, that is, if the community deems he deserves another chance. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Please do not accuse me of harassment without providing any evidence. Your linked diff is of me telling PR that he made a mistake in asking you the question, and noting my confusion at your refusal to deny a CoI even in general terms. (I called you an "IDF member" by mistake, I should have said "someone who is, by circumstance, very likely to be an IDF member".) Your suggestion of a temporary topic-ban while a new mentor and conditions are worked out seems reasonable. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::interesting response to you admitting you also asked the question (while attacking me for pursuing action against your friend). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::The question I asked was in full, "Do you have a potential ] related to the ]? Were you a participant in the event?" <strike></strike> which is ''prima facie'' legitimate, and you have never answered it. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::a simple observation at the "you seem to mirror your country" insults is more revealing than your quote suggests. please stop pretending that PR did not attack me at least twice in your presence when he was uninvolved. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
:::As the person to whom PR's 'controversial' edits, as cited by Karl Meier, were directed, as someone who found them perfectly innocuous, as someone who is responsible for PR writing a private comment to me on a public page ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=prev&oldid=158903787), and as someone who is astonished this sort of kangaroo-courting can take place over trivial disputes, as someone who remains outraged that noseyparkers can butt in like this to cause one of my interlocutors, and wikipedia editors here, to waste so much time, I second ]'s motion.] 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
::::can anyone PR has '''''not''''' drive by reverted for make a statement? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::]Please rephrase that. It is unintelligible in normal English.] 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


:This report belongs at ]. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) {{nacmt}}
::::::Ah, now I gather what the import of your snide gambit was. I'll make an exception and show you how my mind works offline.
:Who posted this complaint, they didn't leave a signature which, to me, shows a lack of experience. They also didn't leave any diffs so it's impossible to judge if there were indeed reverts. And as HeartGlow states, this is more suitable for ANEW which focuses on edit-warring. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to be ]. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think? <small>...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.</small>) - ] (]) 08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry about that, I was a bit sleep deprived when I made, I'll go to WP:ANEW.
:::And yea im way too used to the reply tool, i think i make these posts like once perhaps every few months so i got a bit rusty on this. Thanks! ] (]) 13:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Subtle vandalism by 8.40.247.4 ==
::::::The drift of your little snub is that I shouldn't be trusted to comment on Karl Meier's request that PR be subject to further sanctions because, as you show, PR once reverted to my version and in doing so complimented me.
{{atop|1=Excellent report results in a two-year block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{Userlinks|8.40.247.4}}


Since early 2020, ] has consistently and ] made edits that:
::::::Well, it has nothing to do with debts to flattery. I only noticed this motion to increase bans on PR by chance. The first thing that struck me was its oddity. In my many interactions with PR on pages we have edited in common, I had never heard of Karl Meier, nor seen a squidgeon of his interest in those pages. I only saw you, omnipresent wherever pages touch on what you appear to consider your country's impeccable claims to a flawless record in purity of arms and biblical rights to other people's land. There you are intransigent and ready to work 24/7 to challenge revert, contest, forage for quibbles, to rebut or deflect anything that might spoil the perfect image.


* minimize achievements and contributions of black people in American society
::::::So I asked myself, why is this otherwise unknown Karl Meier jumping into pages where Jaakobou has an ongoing edit conflict with me, and PR, saying that he, the innocent, innocuous bystander, just happened, out of the blue, to chance upon a few pages where PR edits, and to be deeply troubled by the unwiki tenor of PR's edits, so troubled indeed that he thought the Administrators' board should be warned of a serious 'incident'.
* obscure or soften wording about right-wing and far-right leanings of conservative figures
* promote fringe, racist, or pseudo-scientific theories


The IP generally attempts to disguise the edits by lying about changes made in the edit summary. Here is a list of problem edits in chronological order:
::::::I then asked myself, of the hundreds of thousands of pages, of the thousands of editors who get into trouble from time to time, why has this Karl Meier picked on PR, and why has he, in raising a question against PR's behaviour, ''singled out exclusively evidence from '''my''' edit conflicts'' with PR on pages where you are in conflict with both of us? The answer, in the Italian (and Spanish proverb) is '''a bon intenditor, poche parole'''. I.e., this doesn't look, as Meier presents it, a casual matter, but rather may, one cannot say with certainty, but just may be a case of an arranged indictment by third parties to get someone you are frequently in conflict with, off the pages where you and I also edit. Indeed, you immediately jumped at the opportunity to join in the fray, and jerryrig what to all intents and purposes looks like a settling of old scores, but by someone who is only, disinterestedly, in the interests of Misplaced Pages, endeavouring to guarantee quality in Misplaced Pages.


{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
::::::There can be no proof either way. And I should add that my inferences are purely subjective and may well reflect more on me than either you, Jaakobou, or Karl Meier, who may indeed be what you represent yourselves to be, editors concerned with the health and neutrality of Wiki articles. Yet, I chose to intervene, on the outside possibility that these proceedings might indeed be rigged, if only because the substance of the 'incidents' as listed by Karl Meier deal with PR's conflicts with me, and not with either Karl Meier or Jaakobou. As such, I was the only party who had a due right, if I felt there were reasons to protest, to call in the Administrators. Even the slightest odour of suspicion of an entrapment scam involving others gets me on my high horse as an extreme civil libertarian ready to pitch in for the defence, and thus I have spent some hours defending PR, because, gentlemen, this whole interlude strikes me as profoundly sordid, as well as ludicrously trivial. It reminds me of snitching to bureaucracies in totalitarian countries, and grown-ups in a democratic forum should have more sobriety, equanimity and toughness than to rush out at the slightest emotional discomfort they may feel in the presence of a cast of mind they dislike, to engage in ] and denounce the person for what they take as unsocial or unpleasant behaviour, when it is simply a matter of someone else with a profound and equally strongly motivated POV on the world that happens to be diametrically opposed to their own. ] 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
! width="100" | Date
:::::::::geez, you wonder why i use the word <u>succinctly</u> so many times around you? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
! width="225" | Page
::::::::::]. As Conan Doyle might have once quipped: 'Der Teufel steckt im Detail.'] 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
! Issue
|-
| Mar 4, 2020
| '''McComb, Mississippi''' (])
|
* Removal of section about black people gaining the right to vote with the Voting Rights Act.
|-
| May 31, 2020
| '''John Derbyshire''' (])
|
* Removes phrase describing ], a white nationalist organization, as white nationalist. Summary: "{{!xt|Fixed a typo}}".
|-
| Jul 21, 2020
| '''Richard Hayne''' (])
|
* "{{!xt|Reorganised wording}}" means removing criticism.
* "{{!xt|made favourable LGBT commentary more vivid}}" (what?) replaces the subject's stance on homosexuality with a vague and unsourced statement about Urban Outfitters and the Hayne family.
|-
| Jul 28, 2020
| '''Louie Gohmert''' (])
|
* Softens "opposes LGBT rights" to "generally opposes LGBT rights legislation". Removes the words "defamatory" from section on Gohmert's false allegations. Removes whole section on Gohmert's opposition to making lynching a hate crime.
* Summary: "{{!xt|Grammatical issues.}}"
|-
| Sep 24, 2020
| '''Back-to-Africa movement''' (])
|
* Omits the context of Christians accepting slavery when the slaves were Muslim to make it sound like religious Americans had always been morally opposed
|-
| Jan 14, 2021
| '''Virginia Dare''' (])
|
* Removes description of VDARE as a group associated with white supremacy and white nationalism.
|-
| Apr 28, 2021
| '''Bret Stephens''' (])
|
* Hides his climate change denial, so the sentence now basically reads "Bret Stephens has an opinion on climate change". Uses summary "{{!xt|Removed redundancy}}" (it wasn't redundant).
|-
| June 25, 2021
| '''John Gabriel Stedman''' (])
|
* Removes sentence on pro-slavery leanings (admittedly unsourced) and sexual exploitation of one of his slaves (sourced). Summary: "{{!xt|Minor grammatical / spelling errors revised.}}"
|-
| Oct 7, 2021
| '''Appalachian music''' (])
|
* Replaces the "various European and African influences" in the introduction with a phrase implying the music's origins were European, and that African-American influence only came later, which is untrue.
* Rewords " call and response format ... was ''adopted'' by colonial America" to say " ... was ''also common'' in colonial America".
* Removes entire paragraph about African-Americans introducing the banjo to white Southerners. Further down, changes "African banjo" to just "banjo".
* Summaries: "{{!xt|Added links to traditional folk music wikis}}" and "{{!xt|Verbiage clean-up}}".
|-
| Nov 27, 2021
| '''Steve Sailer''' (])
|
* Removes all mention of Sailer, backed by sources, as holding racist, white supremacist, and anti-semitic views in the introduction.
* Removes description of Sailer's human biodiversity theory as pseudoscientific and racist.
* Summary is "{{!xt|Added a link to human biodiversity}}" – true, but leaves out the 6,000 deleted bytes. Makes the same edit two more times, but is reverted each time.
|-
| Jan 26, 2022
| '''Mongoloid''' (])
|
* Removes phrase calling it a disproven theory. Replaces sentence on racist origins in Western scholars with mention of Eastern scholars also promoting the theory (unsourced). Adds a phrase saying that actually, it's up for debate.
|-
| Jul 6, 2022
| '''Indian Mills, New Jersey''' (])
|
* Deletes phrase about white colonists displacing Native American families. Summary: "{{!xt|Removed a dead link}}".
|-
| Feb 20, 2023
| '''Myth of meritocracy''' (])
|
* Changes sentence on institutional racism to describe it as "theoretical institutional racism".
|-
| Mar 26, 2023
| '''Millford Plantation''' (])
|
* Hides the plantation's origins in slavery by renaming description from "forced-labor farm" to "farmstead". Summary: "{{!xt|Added link to slavery in the USA}}".
|-
| Jun 17, 2023
| '''John Birch Society''' (])
|
* Removes mention of the society being right-wing, far-right, and radical right in introduction.
* Further down, removes description as being ultraconservative and extremist, and Southern Poverty Law Center's classification as antigovernment.
* Summary: "{{!xt|Removed faulty and vague links.}}"
|-
| Jan 9, 2025
| '''Robert Gould Shaw''' (])
|
* Removes sentence on the battle inspiring African-Americans to join the Union Army during the Civil War. Summary: "{{!xt|Grammatical clean-up}}".
|-
| Jan 9, 2025
| '''Virginia Dare''' (])
|
* Edits the page again four years later, this time using VDARE's closing as an excuse to remove all mention of it. Claims it is "{{!xt|no longer relevant}}", which is a crazy argument.
|}


The IP doesn't make enough edits at a time for vandalism warnings to rise to level 4, and thus has never been blocked (which is why I'm reporting this here and not at ]). These groups of edits are also spaced out over months, so a different user warns the IP each time (eight times so far!). The user, unfamiliar with the IP's editing history, treats the old warnings as "expired" and simply issues another level 1 or 2 warning.
===Comments by PR on Mentorship and ArbCom===
*'''Comments by PR, subject of this AN/I''' - in all this mess, one thing must be clear to everyone. The operation of the project is coming to be over-run by personal harrassment. It's not just aimed at 'partisans' who might think my particular "problems" are a witch-hunt - it's reached such an atrocious level that anyone, for instance, put forward as a potential mentor by well-respected "outsiders", now finds themselves subject to it.
*Parties to this dispute are making on the latest "coopted" volunteer: ''"care to make a mission statement such as "what sanctions would you implement for which breaches"'' and ''"how do you perceive each of the violations mentioned on the open ANIs?"'' (please check this for yourself - no violations were found in the complaints that this AN/I were supposed to settle).
*These questions are directly followed by attacks on the efforts of ''"this is no joke, two mentors already allowed repeated violations and I see no statement by you to suggest you take this issue seriously."'' An apparent failure to answer these questions results (30 hours later) in this same volunteer/nominee getting an on his TalkPage ''"do you have a second user or is this your only user?''", hinting at sock-puppetry (a complaint of this so baseless as to amount to malice has previously been made).
*Harrassment of this kind seems to have brought my mentorship to an abrupt end after just 3 weeks, during which time I believe it was working well (I was fully expecting it to run for 6 months, perhaps more).
*Even at this current AN/I, my previous "mentor"'s efforts, contributions and conclusions are rejected with prejudice (''"find it disturbing that the person who has stepped up to police his behavior is not aware of PR's record"'' and ''"Your statements that there is "no problem" above seem to belay your belief that PR is not a problem. That is what you seem to be unaware of.... PR's a huge problem and trivializing his disruption with one liners is not helpful."'').
*I have restricted my evidence of this harrassment situation to just those <s>two</s> three people who have most recently stepped up to the plate themselves (or been put forward) as "mentors", more-or-less "neutral" people trying to help the project. I can assure everyone that this situation has been much, much worse in the past when "partisan" contributors have been involved and have tried to present their case. (Many of these people have this time round obscured the good relations they've had with me previously, which may account for the fact it's not as evident on this occasion). Harrassment of "mentors" and "neutral persons" has accelerated however, perhaps because they are still trying to take their positions seriously.
*'''Comment #2''' - another issue arises, and this also casts terminal doubt on the worth of "mentoring", at least in my case. I had a mentor, I have been totally cooperative/compliant with that person (nobody disputes this). And, yet the witch-hunt has been re-started after just 3 weeks. Mentoring has indeed failed - but it was nothing to do with ]'s efforts (and I'd be astonished if anyone thinks I've upset it).
*'''Summary''' - for both these reasons (neither of them concerning my conduct), I believe that "mentorship" has been rendered a dead-duck (at least in my case). Reviving it will not be to the good of the project, it will simply result in more and more individuals in good-standing being victimised by harrassment (and often wrongly accused of being unfit by partisanship). The debate over my "mentorship" threatens lasting damage to the project.
*'''The near future''' - the ArbCom I see coming is going to be exceptionally messy. I request it bear my name (like the one that was dropped over my protests), because I'm the most prominent victim of the harrassment that's become so overwhelming. (Even though it's spread to other editors in good-standing and even to admins, which is clearly much more serious than any discomfiture to me). Titling it "Harrassment of PalestineRemembered" (or anything including my name) will help sharpen people's focus, and enable all the arguments, diffs etc that people have already assembled to be properly aired and considered by the panel. I believe that my case is the one with the fewest confusing factors, breaches of ], edit-warring etc etc, and it is my belief that the panel will fnd this helpful to their deliberations. The last thing we need is a case that magnifies complaints against the management, admins, mediators, mentors etc. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


I believe this IP should be banned for a while. Unfortunately, there are probably many more like this one that haven't been caught yet. --] (]) 09:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
===Recommend ArbCom reopen the case===
:I spot checked these and yeah this is bad. Using false and misleading edit summaries to remove in most cases sourced descriptions to slant articles. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As I said in my comment above (October 7, 14:22), the best solution to this case might be to reopen ]. These allegations have been hanging over PR's head like a Sword of Damocles. I suggest we get it over with. If he's innocent of what he's being accused of, he deserves to be cleared, and if he's guilty, further action might need to be taken. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Jesus Christ. Blocked for two years, since it looks like the IP is stable. ] ] 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I pleaded for that particular case in May 2007 to be arbitrated to completion and was horrified when it was dropped. On reflection, I decided that I don't mind. I can live with unretracted allegations, however nasty, when everyone knows them to have been (by a piece of astonishing good fortune) proved completely baseless.
:::Thank you! ] (]) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've made a case for one particular way of handling what I believe to be a different problem, increasingly endemic, but obviously the ArbCom will have to make up their own minds on how to deal with things.
::::I think this discussion is a good example of providing all the infomation needed to the admins to make the decision. If only everyone who complained here did the same. ] (]) 19:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Having said which, there could be a very good reason for re-opening my case - because the accusation against me was "quoting from hate-sources". I've never been very aware of the problem (by keeping away from them, there's no danger of me picking up lies and retailing them). But I have increasingly noticed that there are hate-sources around that somehow get treated as "Reliable Sources" (and they might qualify by current standards). Perhaps it's time for the ArbCom to deliberate on this problem and perhaps cross off any source that speaks of "Palestinian duplicity", just as we all agree we'd not touch something that spoke of "Jewish duplicity". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Egl7, anti-Armenian behaviour ==
== Stalking and harassment by ] ==
{{atop|1=Egl7 indef'd for being here to argue instead of building an encyclopedia. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Egl7}}


Egl7 clearly has bone to pick with Armenia, including dancing on the fine line of ], not to mention severe ] issues. As a Russian admin admit perfectly put it when they indeffed Egl7;
{{user5|Profg}}, who has been blocked once already for stalking and harassing me, and was doing the same to ], is now targeting ], and I suspect ]. Can someone uninvolved please look into this matter and perhaps try to persuade ProfG that attempting to drive off other editors, isn't a terribly productive way to spend his time here. ]] 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


#Egl7 never tries to take responsibility for their actions, instead being upset and obsessing over that I didn't revert a random IP that added "Armenian" under "common languages" in an infobox almost two years ago , mentioning that 7 (!) times
:I have tried to reason with this particular user on ] to no avail. Uninvolved administrator attention in this matter would be greatly appreciated. ] 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
#According to Egl7, having three things (out of 25) about Armenia on my userpage - being part of the ], being interested in the history of ], and opposing the denial of the Armenian genocide, means I support "Armenia's actions" , whatever that means. They never explained it despite being asked to, which leads me to the next thing.
#Here is this incredibly bizarre rant by Egl7 for me having stuff about Armenia on my userpage and not Azerbaijan, accusing me of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and whatnot;
#Egl7 does not understand when someone is not interested in engaging in ] whataboutism, instead resorting to ], first on my talk page , then an article talk page , then their own talk page . This random question about the ] appeared after I asked them if they denied the Armenian Genocide since they considered me having a userpage about it part of "supporting Armenia's actions". According to this well sourced Wiki section , the term "genocide" is a "fabrication" for the Khojaly massacre, which is "used to counter the narrative of the Armenian genocide."
#Dancing on the fine line of ], if not denying it
#Despite being blocked on the Russian Misplaced Pages for it, their first action here was trying the very same thing they were indeffed for ; changing "Nakhichevan" (Armenian spelling) to "Nakhichivan" (Azerbaijani spelling)
#I truly tried to have ] despite their disruptive conduct and previous block, but this user is simply ]. There also seems to be severe ] at hand, as they struggle understanding a lot of what I say, including even reading ], which I had to ask them to read 5 (!) times before I gave up. As seen in our long discussion , they also to struggle understand basic sentences/words, such as the difference between "official" and "common".


::I have attempted to negotiate with this editor and explain Misplaced Pages policies also to no avail. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I'm not going to respond to Egl7 here unless an admin wants me to. --] (]) 13:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


=== HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour ===
::Editor has stalked me over to ], a field in which he showed no interest, and attempted to ] editors into creating trouble . Profg should be blocked or subject to a community ban. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:My experience with Profg has been that he has a history of advocacy via ignoring/twisting WP:NPOV on creationism and pseudoscience related articles, and when his changes are rejected, he turns it into a personal matter, following those who've most often rejected his edits to unrelated articles they edit and undoing their work there. This a pattern I've seen repeated time and again, and has landed him in hot water more than once. Beyond Wikistalking, Profg has also misused Misplaced Pages processes a number of times to intimidate and silence those he views as his opponents. For example, he's made what have turned out to be several baseless allegations at ] while striking the pose of a victim of incivility when all that has happened is his behavior pattern was identified per ]. He seems addicted to conflict, now fanning the flames at ], and his participation at Misplaced Pages has contributed little other than strife. Misplaced Pages has never been a place for advocacy supported by vexatious litigation to drive off more responsible contributors and bullying by posing as a victim in order to dupe others and he's met all the criteria of a disruptive editor according to ]. Profg should be dealt with quickly and firmly in order to lessen any further disruption to the project. ] 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
]


@] clearly has bone to pick with Azerbaijan, including ] my ] work which includes correction of arrangement of the "Today is part of" infobox following the country, in which, at present, the largest part of the territory of the Nakhchivan Khanate is located. @] is reverting back changes, saying that my https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&diff=prev&oldid=1268162595 edit is not an improvement without any real reason and without offering any argument. Also they are stating that there is a restriction according to ], while ignoring edits of other users. I asked them many times to open a discussion so both sides could offer different proposals which in turn would lead to a consensus. In response all my requests were ignored. Also they have been accusing me of having conflicts with other users and countries while I have never noted or mentioned any and they have been impolite to me all the time, while i have never been impolite or rude to them. I want to say that I am blocked on ru.wikipedia, again, because of no real reason(They are vandalizing and projecting their actions onto me) and now i'm even worried that en.wikipedia will do the same to me.
'''Response from Profg.''' I was blocked once for incivility; I admitted my mistake and corrected it. I was then blocked incorrectly by the same admin for what he thought was an "attempt to harass" another editor. I protested that block very strongly, because it was simply wrong. However, that admin refused to rescind it, despite the evidence put forth on my behalf.


Now, several POV-warriors such as ], ], ], ], ], and ] have apparently banded together against me, attempting to turn the facts around in accusing ''me'' of being what they, in fact, are.


They are also dancing on the fine line of denying ], if not denying it.
This is no claim that there is a "cabal". This is a statement of fact, that several WP editors have taken it upon themselves to "rid Misplaced Pages" of all that does not fall within their (self-admittedly narrow) definition of "science," etc. They "tag-team" reverts of my (and others') legitimate edits, then pull "3RR" threats and AGF claims if they are challenged. They are very good at what they do, and they will probably succeed at this attack, also.


Thank You. ] (]) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I have ''never'' "stalked" or "harassed" any editor. On the other hand, I ''have'' been stalked and harassed, but since I have no clique of Wiki-friends to back me up as these editors do, I have no recourse for it. It is editors like these and their friends who drive away other good editors, and will result in the demise of Misplaced Pages if they are not countered and corrected. It is why college instructors such as myself refuse to allow WP to be used as references or sources in any papers. This is unfortunate, because the WP project is actually a good idea.


This will be my only response to this superfluous "incident" charge. Thank you. --] <sup> ]</sup> 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC) :*'''Boomerang''' this is a clearly retaliatory filing. I think Egl7 is ]. ] (]) 15:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Boomerang''' obvious retaliatory filling. ] (]) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:As a non-EC editor, you should not be discussing Armenia/Azerbaijan issues at all except for making specific, constructive edit requests on the relevant talk pages. Once you received notice about the restriction, none of your related edits were in good faith, and all may be reverted without being considered edit warring. And quite frankly, the diffs that HistoryofIran has presented about your behavior don't look great. Your behavior on Russian Misplaced Pages doesn't affect your rights on English Misplaced Pages, but since you brought it up, I have to agree that you were there and now here more to fight than to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. ] (]) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think what is needed here is for uninvolved admins/editors to review the above. I don't really qualify, since I've run across ] in the past and share most of the above views regarding his generally confrontational and unhelpful approach. is pretty clear Wikistalking; I'd block him myself, given his history of similar malfeasance, were I not somewhat involved. An interesting quote is : Profg chastises another editor by stating (quite correctly, in fact) that: ''I have found that one of the signs of a POV-warrior is his tendency to resort to ].'' He quickly closes the irony loop by noting: ''There are obvious exceptions; I have reminded others of AGF, as well.'' Indeed. Any uninvolved editors/admins willing to look this over? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::@] tell me, please, if there is a restriction why are everybody's edits are ignored except mine? You are not doing justice. ] (]) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, that certainly wouldn't be me: I find Profg to be among the lowest of the low of Misplaced Pages editors, bringing all of the oily, sneaky, dishonesty of backroom politics to Misplaced Pages. His "contributions" have in no wise been constructive, his disruption of the project immense, and his ill-will and noetic necropathy are manifest. ] 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Because the restriction is specific to people who do not have extended confirmed status. ] (]) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status? ] (]) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I second the above opinion. ScienceApologist , for which Profg was the contributing editor. Profg then , asserting that ScienceApologist was claiming it was non-notable because he "didn't like the topic". Shortly afterwards, he then ScienceApologist to his arbitration case against another user; beating even the other subject of the case to comment. His comments are pretty much the standard assertions of ScienceApologist being a "POV-warrior" and claiming incivility and bad faith; they show no actual knowledge of the dispute, nor are they really related to the arbitration case, beyond simple name-calling.
:::::The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward. ] (]) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:ScienceApologist then why he was being tracked. Profg , calling the request a "threat", accusing him of ] and baiting him for a "desired effect". The hostile response prompted a , which Profg then chastised him for not "assuming the assumption of good faith" &mdash; ironic, given the accusations leveled. I'm not going to block here, since although I've never been directly involved with blocking this editor, the fact that I've been following this little dispute is enough to render my judgement a little compromised. In my opinion, this was clearly stalking, and definitely deserves a block. Profg does not seem to understand that "seeing what another user was up to", and the following them around, is harassment. --] 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm not taking about @] here. Look up the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&action=history. You can see that there are IPs, edits of which were ignored even if those edits have been done after the restriction had been set. This is what makes it unfair. By this logic my edits should've been ignored too. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No IP has edited the page in question in nearly a year. You are complaining about a non-issue. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: It isn't clear to me that Profg was stalking me, but this does look strongly like he was stalking SA. ] 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::The restriction has been set much earlier than a year. ] (]) 16:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Question from someone completely uninvolved here... has there been any sort of ] attempted between any of the involved editors (user RFC, etc.)?--] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Right, but at ANI we deal with {{tq|urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} The IP edits here are old news. Further, having now reviewed the page's last 5 years of history...out of 7 IP edits made, 5 were reverted almost immediately, 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (]), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (], which added "Armenian language"). You'll notice upon minimal investigation, however, that HistoryofIran's most embattled edits to this page were to ''remove'' "Armenian language" from the article in July of 2023; it's rather disingenuous to accuse them of all people of turning a blind eye here. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:There are many different ways to resolve disputes according to ]. Many of the informal steps listed there we have tried as documented above. If we went to ] we are greeted with a notice that says if we need administrator intervention (which is what we are asking for) we are to go here. In other words, this is part of the dispute resolution process. ] 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::This does not refute what I said above. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::There are actually 2 or more of them. I guess it's his duty to support both sides and remove or add information which is or is not necessary. ] (]) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Apart from SA's attempt, ] has also tried to reason with him, as has ],, and ]. ]] 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not sure what you're trying to say here at this point, but it also doesn't matter. HoI raised multiple valid concerns regarding the quality of your editing in an area that per our community guidelines, you should be intentionally avoiding. In response, you filed a retaliatory report and are now arguing technicalities that are tangential to the substance of HoI's initial report. The fact that you are arguing such trivial, irrelevant points is evidence against you in these proceedings. Your best course of action is to follow Simonm223's advice above. Failure to take that advice at this point is almost certain to end with you blocked. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? ] (]) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have been an observer of Profg and I have seen very disturbing behavior with regards to the events above, and also in regards to ] and others. Stalking, canvassing, harassing, disruptive editing, POV warring and uncivil behavior seem to be his stock in trade.--] 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::It's not. However, someone making an inappropriate edit without being caught does not make your inappropriate edits into appropriate ones. There have been many successful bank robberies in history, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to rob the bank next to my grocery store. You need to start focusing on how ''you'' conduct yourself, not on how others do, because right now, you appear to be headed towards a block. ] (]) 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine. ] (]) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* ''several POV-warriors such as ], ], ], ], ], and ] have apparently banded together against me,'' as ] said "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
** Yes, and all suspiciously sounding like we are dealing with a case of ]. Such attitudes have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, ''ergo'' "If they're really out to get you, you aren't paranoid," or "Just because you're paranoid does not mean people aren't out to get you." -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? ] (]) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::], {{tq| The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed}}. That includes complaints about other editors. Which you should know already, as you have been repeatedly warned about GS/AA and should have read that page carefully. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, as far as JoshuaZ goes, I say "suspect", mostly due to comment, then later turning up out of nowhere to comment on an RfAr that JoshuaZ was involved in, though looking again, I see that Odd nature was involved in that as well, and in any case, it was there that he turned his attention to scienceapologist, despite being warned against doing so. As for Orangemarlin, it's pretty obvious that profg stalked him from ], to ]. Again I ask, can someone not already involved, please take a look at this, his primary editing method appears to be to attack, stalk, harass and attempt to intimidate those he disagrees with. ]] 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::So Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident, which in my case is "HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour"? I am asking this because you said that "The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward". And still, what you said in this comment does not refute what I said above. ] (]) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Lists of everyone that has been sanctioned for GS/AA violations, or CT/AA violations more broadly, can be found at ] and further at ] under each year's Armenia-Azerbaijan (CT/A-A) section. Note that this only lists people who repeatedly ignored warnings and got blocked for it, simple reverts are not logged. I would encourage you to avoid getting your own username added to that list. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Indef block is long overdue'''. After some reading of the edit history (which reveals interesting deletions of comments) of this user's talk page and , I am amazed that ] is still with us and see this as a case of the system failing to protect Misplaced Pages (and especially its editors) from disruptive and unsavory editors. Leniency has its limits. He should have been indef blocked along time ago. I have rarely seen such a negative learning curve. Even when multiple administrators have advised him and given him warnings, he then treats a highly respected admin like KillerChihuahua with extreme disrespect by deleting KC's helpful advice with this edit summary: "". This is not the prison system where a criminal serves his time and gets out, even while clearly revealing no repentance or any intentions of reforming. Here we have a user who is rebellious and treats blocks and the advising and blocking admins with contempt. An uncivil editor with such a negative learning curve should be treated the way criminals who are not reformed should be treated - keep them in jail until they prove they are reformed, regardless of their original sentence. In this case an immediate indef block would be perfectly appropriate and is long overdue. That's the only way to make the streets safe around here. Keep this one out of circulation. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
* All I see is Egl7 doubling down. I have already tried to tell them that there was nothing wrong with the IP edit they are fixiated on, and that it doesn’t excuse their unconstructice edits regardless. The fact that they were caught red handed in genocide denial and anti-Armenian conduct and then fruitlessly attempts to make me appear as the same with Azerbaijanis by copy-pasting part of my report and replace “Armenian” with “Azerbaijani” says a lot about this user. ] (]) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

*:@] "There was nothing wrong"
Has this user gone through a RFC? ] <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
*:As @] said 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (]), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (], which added "Armenian language").

*:As I understand you were aware or now are aware of those edits done by those IPs what tells me that you admit that you ignored or are ignoring the edits that have been done after the restriction has been set and now you are still stating that there was or is nothing wrong with those IPs' edits. ] (]) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:To the best of my knowledge, no. But as the community voice is clearly in support of an indef ban, any RfC would simply delay the inevitable. As you are aware, the RfC process is used when there is some chance of remediation: there is no such chance here. In going over Profg's edits of the past month, his tendentiousness and intransigence has grown rather than abated (or even hovered at the status quo). He has become increasingly nonproductive and troll-like; has made unfounded accusations of persecution by an evil cabal, in the process assuring that those editors so accused have every right to suspend the extension of AGF in his case; has refused to listen to guidance offered him by respected editors; and has made a mockery of Misplaced Pages's tolerance for all ideas. Fyslee's assertion of Profg's ] is highly accurate, and thus indicative of an editor beyond hope or help.
*::And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I shall add, that in going over Profg's edits, I have yet to find one redeemable edit, assuring then that an RfC will be littered with his misdeeds, with nothing exculpatory capable of being offered. Bottom line here is that the community has suffered enough of Profg's disruption. ] 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
*:::I '''endorse''' this block. ] (]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}
:::Well there are generally procedures to go through. An attempt to solve the dispute personally (done several times), An RFC, and then an arbitration. An RFC could be used as evidence in an arbitration. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}

:::: While those procedures have their place, there is nothing preventing any admin from single-handedly indef blocking any user caught in gross violation of certain policies here, and it happens all the time, saving alot of wasted time. It has its corrollary in real life when a police officer catches a criminal in the act. While the court system is there and can be used, if necessary the officer may be justified in immediately acting to stop a crime by using lethal violence on the spot. This saves alot of wasted time in the court system. I am hoping an admin will be courageous enough to just indef block this user at any moment. No one will complain. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of a user:RfC ever being worth the time people put into it? I've started a number, commented on a number and they've all more or less ended up in arbitration or back here or at CSN or resolved through some other means eventually. Never has the User:RfC amounted to any action taking place. What's the point of User RfCs? ] 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::Not sure. Though this page here is essentially a RFC as so many editors are commenting. I don't think ProfG can simply be banned without some sort of arbitration though. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I started a proposal about this: ]. ] 18:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::::LOL, SA. Actually, WDM, he ''can'' be summarily banned, it's called a community ban. ] 19:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::SA, I am SOOO happy you're back with us. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

*An indef block has been proposed. It seems clear that Profg has shown contempt for Misplaced Pages and has escalated from personal attacks and incivility to stalking and harassment. No one has offered any positive comments about Profg. It may be that he has exhausted the communities patience. Are there any administrators who object to such a block? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::KC, let it be noted, almost this entire "discussion" has been amongst yourselves; there is no "consensus" among uninvolved parties, any more than there was "consensus" to the ] I just created, where most of the parties here also went to "impartially discuss". I have obviously not been "caught in gross violation" of WP policies to warrant an indef block. I am more than willing to enter into arbitration, as there is ample evidence that can be brought forth on my behalf. If you are intent on an indef block, please follow policies and procedures accordingly. Thank you. --] <sup> ]</sup> 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not an admin, but I would not object to such a measure considering this users history. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Considering what aspect of this users history, please? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Well the whole stalking and harassing thing. Not to mention he's already been blocked in the past twice for incivility and harassment. I think the other editors commenting here have brought up a lot. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. You cite multiple instances of this editor '''not''' being beneficial, not learning, not in short being anything but a detriment to Misplaced Pages, and you give that as reason for your objection? Please clarify, I seem to be missing something here. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what you're asking. I stated that I do NOT object to this user being blocked for a long period of time. The reasons are echoed by the other editors who have commented here. This user has been blocked twice in the past for harassment and incivility, attempts have been made on my part and the part of other editors to try to get him to act civil and to explain the policies to him. I explaining policies and methods for properly editing and he seems to have ignored them (as he continues to edit the same way since he started). For the record, I never said that this user has made no beneficial contributions. I would have to look over his edit history to determine that and it's quite subjective anyway. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh sorry, my error - I read it wrong. I missed the "not" and read it as you ''would'' object - apologies for any confusion I've caused. Thanks for your patience in clarifying and clearing up my misunderstanding. :-) ]<sup>]</sup> 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::::As a pretty much uninvolved editor - I've seen him around, but not really interacted with him that I can recall, I'm going to pass judgement. Indef blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
'''Endorse block'''. I've observed ProfG's behavior at ] and the associated ] and found him to be completely unknowledgeable about the topic, yet bent on opposing whatever OrangeMarlin's view happened to be. I'm not going to post diffs about this, in the interest of privacy, but a glance at his editing history (particularly from last spring and summer) reveals a clear conflict of interest. ] 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::This user is requesting to be unblocked:]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:Something is really bothering me here. The diffs above don't seem particularly bad and I've seen far worse from a number of admins. The article talk pages in that topic area are largely a cesspool simply because emotions tend to run high. Pick out a few diffs from anyone who edits controversial topics and you'll find some things here and there. It looks like there was a previous well-earned block but since then, the only diffs provided are that he has opined on an arbitration case. Good grief, should we go block everyone who does that for "stalking"? Unless there is something more, I '''oppose''' this ban. I'm not saying there isn't something more - just that I haven't seen it. --] 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:: I have to echo B's comments here. As an entirely uninvolved Admin, who has spent a couple of hours digging through all of this, I'm not seeing anything that clinches the argument to ban. Yes, Profg originally tried to remove negative information from the CBU article, but he stopped that & his attempts to make some copy edits kept getting reverted -- as if the folks involved had already made up their minds about him. And in the charge that Profg stalked OrangeMarlin from CBU to Homeopathy, it appears to me that ''the opposite'' actually happened. And the exchange between Wikidudeman & OrangeMarlin was far more passionate than anything Profg wrote. About the only things I could find were the odd snide comments, & the edit comment on deleting KillerChuhuana's post. I'm not going to unblock him, though, because if I had been in his place & been treated this badly for no good reason I would have left Misplaced Pages; wanting more of the same is just not expected behavior. -- ] 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I echo B and Llywrch in '''opposing''' this ban as at least one-sided. I don't endorse Profg's opinions, and I agree that his behavior has sometimes been out of line, but I have been concerned recently about the behavior of others who seem determined to bait him and then get rid of him. I have recently been involved in a prolonged discussion on ] (]), a contentious religio-political issue on which finding the right NPOV balance takes a lot of work. Several of us have been involved in a mostly constructive dialogue, but I have not appreciated the behavior of ] and ], who have both (ON more than FM) repeatedly reverted the page to their preferred POV while refusing after many requests to take any part in the constructive discussion on the talk page. What makes this particularly relevant to the current dispute is for another of Odd nature's unjustified reversions, in which he accused Profg of stalking him despite the fact that Profg had been involved in the talk-page discussions that ON has continually shunned. The charge obviously didn't stick (it's not mentioned above), but the pretexts have now been found elsewhere. My impression of FM and ON is that they prefer to advance their position by forcefully restating it, and I fear that their attempt to get rid of Profg is another example of this. --] 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag from here because I really don't think this is resolved. I'm not seeing anyone who is not involved in this topic area support the ban. There hasn't been a community ban discussion - this is an "old school" ban where a user is considered banned if no admin is willing to unblock. Well, consider this notice that I am willing to unblock and it is my intention to unblock barring substantial agreement by ''uninvolved'' users that the block should remain in place. I would like to offer the proposal to {{user|Profg}} that he agree to civility parole and a 1RR restriction and, if he accepts, it is my intention to unblock him. Any thoughts? --] 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. Profg deserves a formal warning and a chance to reform. There are some violations of ] that are not to be winked at, but provocation by other users should also be taken into account. In my opinion, the ] accusation has been exaggerated (and the second block was borderline), though there may be some real violations there as well. I think stalking policy and how it applies to Profg's situation should be made crystal clear to him. Finally, several users involved here could use a reminder that seeking ] (and abiding by it if it goes against you) is superior to edit-warring. --] 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::Who cares? The consensus is that this editor remain blocked/banned/exiled. I strongly disagree with your two-person agreement.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::: I think you mean ''three'' people; in any case, a block like that requires unanimous support. If B is willing to supervise ProfG -- or ProfG stays away from this article for the time being -- he should be given another chance. If you can produce more convincing evidence than what I've seen above, I'm willing to change my mind. He's obviously not a saint & his behavior merits at the least a warning, but in this case I feel ProfG was nothing more than the lightning rod that grounded the hostile energy surrounding this article. -- ] 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Quite frankly, I think you're being a fool. Believe it or not, WP is not a utopian remediation project, we have real work to do, and rehabilitating tendentious edits is not one of our chores. ] 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::This is a bad move made by a couple of admins. This is why people like JzG and SlimVirgin leave this project, because more time is spent supporting the POV warrior attitude of editors like ProfG instead of supporting those editors who carefully build articles across a wide spectrum of the project. I think this decision goes against what is right, and allows someone who whines the loudest to get their way. Moreover, Profg will be gloating that he can get away with this. Well, there are other ways to have ProfG removed from the project, that don't rely upon the minority opinions of two admins. Will we ever learn? ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Then provide diffs that prove your point. I don't mind blocking people, & I'm not doing this out of friendship for PrfG, but all I've seen in this dispute is run-of-the-mill sarcasm & heated words -- from both sides. We start blocking people for that, there won't be anyone left to manage the project except for the newbies & those who make les than 25 edits & move on. -- ] 05:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::: Llywrch, are we even talking about the same editor? The only way I can make sense of your comments is if you have read the edit history of another editor than Profg. Amazing. I think your comment that "all I've seen in this dispute is run-of-the-mill sarcasm & heated words -- from both sides" is very telling. I don't doubt that that is "all" you've "seen", because that too exists. You have apparently not "seen" what the rest of us have seen and which is abundantly evident if you study his talk page and interactions with others. Too bad that this menace will now be released on us again. Just as long as he stays away from his usual haunts, maybe some progress can be made in actual editing. Fortunately I don't do much editing on creationist topics, preferring to edit alternative medicine/quackery type stuff, since that's what I know most about. But just the storms left after his presence spill all over the place and create disruption far and wide in indirect ways. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this block as soon as I finish typing this. 24 hours after my previous message, no uninvolved user has weighed in to oppose the unblock. No uninvolved user even weighed in to support the block to begin with. After a careful review of Profg's contributions, I find no evidence to support the contention that he has had no positive contributions and only evidence of one bad behavior - canvassing - since his last block, for which a 48-hour block is sufficient. As a matter of procedure, this discussion was originally not raised as a community ban discussion and from the first mention of an indefinite block until the time it was imposed was only 24 hours. During that time, not a single uninvolved editor weighed in. An unblock here has no downside. Profg has agreed to editing restrictions. If he creates a disruption, that's it. He's gone. I do not take this action lightly, but I firmly believe that the block was incorrect and that the ban discussion was insufficient. --] 22:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I think this is a bad bad idea. If you unleash this holy terror on us to try to destroy the project, we will pay a terrible price for your recklessness. The only way I would let him back on is under the condition that he be blocked from all evolution and creationism-related articles where he engages in pitched combat and viscious attacks. It would probably be a good idea that he stay away from editing pseudoscience and religion articles as well.--] 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:"Holy terror"? That's uncalled for. In any event, if he is incivil or disruptive, it's over - I will personally reimpose the block if someone doesn't beat me to it. Please give him the benefit of the doubt. --] 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::If there was any doubt, I'd give him the benefit. Although the unblock was exceptionally ill-advised he probably is smart enough to clean up his act for a while. I trust you will stand behind your promise to reinstate the block once he reverts to type. ] 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:If you're going to unblock, I highly suggest a topic ban as well as a civility parole. He has not had a problem with 3RR, so that's a bit of a red herring IMO. No one has addressed my concerns of a COI that I expressed above either. ] 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::You've got to be more specific about the COI. --] 23:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I'll email you. ] 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'''Thank you.''' --] <sup> ]</sup> 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

'''Protest unblock'''.<br>
Admin ''']''', your mention of "uninvolved users" is a red herring. You thus ignore and even throw away the voice of all the many concerned users, both involved and uninvolved, who have voiced their concerns above. Profg has now removed all remnants of the agreement. I believe it should be a condition that he leave the template and agreement at the top of his talk page for the benefit of other users. This is especially important considering that he has previously removed warnings, not because he has simply read them, but in defiance and as a demonstration that he had no intention of heeding the warnings. He has done this before, so this time he should leave the warnings, templates, etc. on the page until his probation is over. In fact he should be warned not to remove any warnings in the future. For your sake I hope that your trust will be rewarded, but I fear that he will drag you down with him, since he seems to be unreformable. Reinstating such a banned user after such an emphatic consensus against him is unheard of and usually not a good move. Your move expresses a remarkable lack of good faith towards the community's decision. Such a massive failure to AGF is problematic, especially coming from an admin like yourself. You should have (earlier in the process) been a part of the discussion here and let your concerns be heard and discussed. I never knew anything about your plans to reinstate Profg until it was done. Once he had been blocked, my attentions (and likely most other's as well) were turned elsewhere so you and Profg could do this "behind our backs." I strongly protest this unwise move and wish you had shown some good faith in us instead of treating us with such disrespect. <s>Such a move surprises and disappoints me, considering your profession of faith on your user page. If that's what such a belief produces, then I question its value.<s> (My apologies to B for getting carried away.) -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:That last comment was way over the line, Fyslee. Regarding ''"I believe it should be a condition that he leave the template and agreement at the top of his talk page for the benefit of other users,"'' I agree. Profg has a history of archiving his talk page using the ], but I think he should be strongly encouraged to use the subpage method instead, and to leave the agreement on his main talk page. --] 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Thanks BlueMoonlet. I did get carried away and have struck out my last comment. My apologies to B. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::That's fine with me; I agree to do so. --] <sup> ]</sup> 07:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Thanks Profg. I hope to see a good followup on your intentions expressed here. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, one admin, who seems to be supporting these type of useless editors (I note the Ferrylodge arbitration), has decided to undo what the community believes. B should put himself up for recall, because he shouldn't have this power. This is a terrible decision that ignores the mass of evidence of Profg's behavior. I can't believe it. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:OM, if you want to take this to a venue where a significant number of impartial and uninvolved people will make a fair decision, feel free. I think our point is that that's what should have been done in the first place. --] 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::And I think you're overstepping. ] 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Guys, to be perfectly honest, this is just taking a turn for the weird. The flagrant personal attacks here are worse than anything I have seen from Profg. No uninvolved user has even weighed in here in support of the ban - this isn't how community bans work. Community bans are COMMUNITY bans, not involved editor bans. A ban is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the first one. But if you really feel that a ban is warranted, have a legitimate discussion with input and agreement from uninvolved editors - uninvolved means people who don't edit the same topic area - and an uninvolved admin to make the block and I won't stand in the way. If the decision to ban him is really the correct decision, you ought to be able to convince a few uninvolved editors of it. --] 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I also disagree with this user being unblocked. I think that too many people are far too lenient with such editors who have been given far too many chances and continue to disrupt. Essentially every editor involved with ProfG agrees that he is disruptive and problematic. My question is, why do so many people assume that an editor not involved has a more accurate idea of this editor than editors who have spent weeks or months with him? Sure, involved editors might be blinded by their own emotions, however I think that is drastically underestimating most editors. I think that the editors who have experience with this editor have a lot more to say than someone who has no experience with them. I also believe that if one takes enough time to closely examine ProfG's edits, they too would agree with the large number of involved editors, that ProfG is quite disruptive. I find it quite odd that for obvious vandals, we give them a few warnings and then block them (at increasing durations after each offense), and with less obvious problematic editors than obvious vandals we generally give them attempts to change in the forms of requests for comment, mediations and then finally arbitrations. However what do we do for the editors who fall in between obvious vandals and the not so obvious problematic editors? Obviously an arbitration lasting for months isn't the way to go, nor are RFC's which are frequently ignored or disregarded by such editors. I think that community blocks are the answer and that this block was well justified. Perhaps the best way to go is to put limitations on this user, such as 1rr and a civility watch, however as has been mentioned above, many of this editors problems arise neither from 3rr or obvious incivility but stalking and harassment. Obviously stalking is the worst problem with this user, who has caused a lot of problems at the ] article, an article which apparently he was uninterested in until following another user there. Perhaps another limitation can be placed on this editor which would prevent him from stalking and harassing other editors, however I can think of no such limitation that can be put in places that would have any such effect as it's quite subjective to judge whether a user innocently came to an article with a user he is in dispute with or came there to further the dispute and/or harass the other user in question. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::1RR isn't just about 3RR. It ensures that someone pushing a POV can't continually revert to their POV. --] 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures ==

Moved to: ]

== Admin going overboard with blocks? ==

I noticed that some two-edit or three-edit vandals were being blocked without warning by ]. I am not entirely sure whether this is overboard or not, please check. thanks. ] 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:ok, at least one of them, ]. Not sure about others. ] 04:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::It's fairly normal practice to block wikipedia accounts who's first and only contribs are vandalism. Admitedly this is not clear cut vandalism so a block wasn't really necessary IMHO. I can't see any other examples that fit this complaint. Most of the others seem to have done more blatant vandalism and have been warned at least once. The fact that we are often too lenient (IMHO anyway) with vandals doesn't mean we have to be. ] 10:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Is this just tacit custom? Or is it mentioned explicitly somewhere in the block policy? <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So what is up with that comment? ] 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:See ]. ] 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Carlcarlcarl's edit isn't blatant vandalism (meaning recognizable to someone with no knowledge of the subject). Whether it is an edit in good faith or not, I have no idea ... but it needs explanation. I have no problem with blocking without warning someone who believes that all articles should have references to human anatomy - such a person is not going to be a serious contributor. But something like this at least needs explanation that it really is vandalism, not just a POV. (I have no idea whether this edit is accurate or not.) --] 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== Opera Mini ==

Mmm, ] is asking his block to be reviewed. Apparently he is using ] (p09-04.opera-mini.net == 88.131.66.88). I couldn't find the relevant thread but I remember OM to have been discussed lately, and that it was agreed they should be added to the list of proxies sending XFF headers. Can someone confirm this has been done and lift the relevant blocks? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 06:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:I occasionally edit from Opera Mini and can confirm that most of their proxies are only softblocked. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">''']<big style="color:#090">.</big>]''' ''at 07:21, 10/12/2007''</small>
::Softblocked for now then. Can someone poke a dev to check if the ] updated the list? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 07:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::There's an updated list , and it doesn't include Opera Mini. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">''']<big style="color:#090">.</big>]''' ''at 08:40, 10/12/2007''</small>
::::Yeah, I wondered if that list was up-to-date in fact :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::] says "Contact xff AT wikimedia DOT org for listing and delisting inquiries." ]&nbsp;] 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

==]==
{{userlinks|Bless sins}} has continuously added material that includes contentious, unduly self-serving claims about Ali Sina to the article ], using primary sources, which Clearly violate ]. The material added is meant to depict Ali Sina as a hate monger by use of selective primary source quotespamming. '''] ]''' 06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:I have used the exact same source that is already used in the article, namely this one: {{Cite web|url=http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2006/July/Fallaci/index.html|title=Viva Oriana!|accessyear=2007|accessmonthday=September 23|publisher=]|year=13 July 2006|author=Ali Sina|work=Point|language=English}}.
:Regarding making Sina look like a hate-monger. Currently the article says 'Sina describes Muhammad as a "rapist", a "pedophile",a "monster", and mass murderer"'. Does that not make Sina a "hate monger"? And aren't we simply supposed to state facts as they are, or are we supposed to cherry pick which facts make Sina look best?] 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Regarding the last two links posted by Yahel Guhan, I'm no longer adding that content. But I would like it if there was debate over whether using FFI for the views of Sina is appropriate.] 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::This is a noticeboard for issues requiring administrator attention, which this issue apparenlty does not. You want ]. ] 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Prehaps I should have clarified. I was reporting a BLP violation. '''] ]''' 03:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Second opinion/block review of ] ==

I need a second opinion on {{userlinks|Cberlet}}. He posted a Wikibreak which, among other things, accuses unnamed editors of being "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots." Since the editors are unnamed, I left it alone. But he also made disparaging remarks against Lyndon LaRouche which would certainly be unacceptable in article space as BLP violation, so I . He has since twice restored the comments, after which I blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. (I also blocked {{user|Hardindr}}, an apparent SPA troll.) I would like a review of Cberlet's edits and my block. ] 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Looks like a good block to me. --] 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Good call. I'd also suggest a checkuser, considering that this guy's ''very first edit'' was to Cberlet's page. ]] 14:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

: I'm not entirely comfortable in this specific case. Chip Berlet is a known critic of Lyndon LaRouche off-wiki, & is expressing his own opinion -- which is cited in the article ]. We do allow for a degree of free speech on user pages. LaRouche is arguably a public figure, so I believe that the concerns of WP:BLP may not apply here -- & if LaRouche believes himself to be libeled he would proceed after Berlet. Then again, Berlet says he is on a WikiBreak, so he shouldn't be looking at his user page & a 24-hour block would be more symbolic than effective in that case. -- ] 20:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

: It doesn't matter whether someone is a public figure who has made notable criticism or not. BLP violations are not magically ok in userspace simply because the person saying it is notable. This was the correct decision. ] 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::Looks good to me as after all its only a short block, ] 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Although it already expired at this point (?), I don't think a blocking was the best idea. Not because I tend to agree with llywrch, which I do, but due to the fact (and I keep saying this though I'm not sure anyone is listening) that, when it comes to possible disruption on userpages, protection is almost ''always'' preferable to blocking. A block, even a brief one, is traumatic. Protection, on the other hand, is a much more narrow, targeted solution. And userpages are not like articles; it's not as if it's a priority to leave the page unprotected so others can edit it. I once had userpage protected for two weeks until the user agreed to adhere to policy terms in one of its sections. Throughout that time, he was able to make many other unrelated edits, which he would have been unable to had he been blocked (he might have agreed to the terms more quickly in that event, but a lot of hurt feeling were spared, I believe, by not issuing a block, again, by virtue of this problem being limited to a user page). ] 09:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: That action -- protecting the page, rather than blocking the user -- I'm more comfortable with, although it's not the perfect answer. (And no, I don't know that that would be.) Blocking a user -- especially one like Cberlet who has had to confront the combined venom of LaRouche's followers dealing with their POV-pushing -- can be received as an unfairly punitive thing. Especially when the LaRouchies were the first group to attempt to push their own agenda & opinions upon Misplaced Pages; before the Scientologists, the US Congress, the Catholics, the Neo-Nazis & even the anti-circumcision activists. They would see driving Cberlet as a victory, which would motivate them to keep pushing for a mention of LaRouche's lunatic fringe ideas into every article they could find. Out of concern for Misplaced Pages, I hope we treat him better when he returns from his WikiBreak. -- ] 23:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::I reviewed this issue on ]. Basically, all the derogatory terms Cberlet used about LaRouche can be amply sourced, unlike typical BLP violations. I think the matter here is the subtler issue of neutrality, which manifests itself in saying that Larouche "is" those things, rather than that he "has been called" those things. Since the BLP violation was subtle rather than egregious it might have been more helpful to have had a discussion rather than reverts and a block. (Since neither side sought a discussion that goes both ways). I'm more concerned with the comments about other (unnamed) editors. I think Cberlet may have been acting out of frustration at the endless stream of accounts, many of them apparently socks of HK, that keep appearing to push the LaRouche POV on Misplaced Pages. That doesn't justify incivility, but it is understandable. ]] ] 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== ], new ] with serious ] and disruptive ] & ] & ] problems ==

We need to block {{userlinks|Geoeg}} at least briefly to get his attention to the fact that policies and guidelines need to be respected at least a bit. The problem has been documented and discussed at ] as well as at ], but so far we have not asked for a block. All his latest contribs today continue the abuse and POV pushing. If someone thinks a block is not yet obviously needed, please advise on suggested process here. ] 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:I have now also asked for a 3RR block, since he continued to revert on two articles after my warning. But his offenses are much worse than that and deserve a more serious block than that's likely to get (and may get me one, too). ] 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::Note that shows that Geoeg is engaging in a revert war with Dicklyon. ], it takes two to tango. <font color="006622">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Indeed it does, and I apologize for my part in it, but calls for help on 3O, COI, wikiquette, etc., did only a little to slow him down; that's why I'm here now. Please review the problem and advise. He's now blocked for 48 hours on second 3RR violation, but he'll be back Monday most likely. By the way, I visited the steel museum last time I was in Sheffield; nice place. ] 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== Block review ==

I blocked ] for 3RR (really, edit-warring in general) on today's featured article, ]. Ordinarily this would be a routine case but my understanding is that we tend to err on the side of encouraging editing of FAs. Review welcome. ] 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:I think the block should be lifted if John agrees to cease editing ID until after it comes off the main page. ] 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Yikes. I wish I had the time to look into this. I ''sincerely'' question the need for a block, given my interaction with John in the past. —] ] ] 16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Damn, I really wish I wasn't in the middle of class. Where, exactly, do you get 4 reverts from? Ugh. —] ] ] 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::John is a good guy and is a great editor. I don't think he knew the extensive background and warring that went on over that particular use of the word. He added the MOS reversions then went after a NPOV tag ] 16:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Looks to me like he's just tidying up terminology and following procedure by giving it an NPOV tag since it keeps getting reverted. ] 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::One man's tidying is another groups ignoring of ] and ]. It should get resolved pretty quickly. Unfortunately ID is one of those subjects that gets harped on for a long time and unless you know the history, you become part of the "But what about..." people. ] 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm not sure I agree with this, since there have been many 3RRs on the page (I think I may have gone over 3RR although I wasn't keep ing track. Most of the edits I reverted were vandalism and a few were technically reversions but were atempts to restore content lost in edit conflicts). While there is some leeway aloud with featured articles in general, that's to keep the content ok despite possible POV pushing. The matter in question was (and is) being discussed on the talk page and it is unbecoming for an editor to keep edit warring rather than take further part in the discussion (although John did play a minor part). The most serious issue is that the number of reverts was very high. If I read this correctly I count at least 6 edits which are reversions which is way over 3RR. Overall, I probably would not have blocked, but I'm not inclined to unblock. It seems like a call within reason. ] 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::: Correction, no actual 3RR appeared to occur since only 3 of the edits were actual reverts. ] 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:My quick review of his contributions confirms his assertions. There were serial edits, but they were not reverts. There's no edit warring here, let alone 3RR. I think this block was improper. -] 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:: Um, it certainly looks like edit warring to me, when multiple editors are telling someone to stop doing something and you keep doing it but in other sections of the same article that's still edit warring. ] 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't see it. I see a bunch of serial edits, a few reverts, and then posting of an NPOV tag. The way I see it, assuming good faith on all sides is that he was in the process of making these changes, multiple editors told him to stop and then he stopped. To me, that's not edit warring. -] 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he is unblocked per agreement not to edit the article for the rest of the day. ] 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Indeed, I unblocked him per his agreement to Raul and Brad's request. Sorry I couldn't comment here more quickly, I was moving to a different class. I'll comment later about the block when I'm free. —] ] ] 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
*Thanks very much everyone. I am sorry this trouble arose. I definitely had no intention of edit warring or violating WP:3RR. I don't believe I did violate 3RR. Per the ], "claim" is a loaded term that is often used to denigrate the assertions to which is is referring. The exceptions are references to legal proceedings and when inside direct quotes.
:I was going through the article section by section checking instances to see if they complied with ] and changing those that did not comply to more neutral terms like "said" (v) or "assertion" (n).
:I was not aware I was being reverted until someone left a message at my Talk page.
:When I realized I was being reverted, I responded by posting my concerns to the article Talk page.
:Since I could not restore my changes without running afoul of 3RR, I tagged the article with a NPOV tag. The reason is that the article is POV with all these instances of "claim" being used to denigrate one side of the debate.
:Unfortunately, the tag was twice removed, despite the fact that the tag clearly states not to remove it until the dispute is settled.
:'''I request that an uninvolved admin restore the tag until the issue is resolved through discussion.''' ]\<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::I think that an NPOV tag should not be applied to the mainpage featured article. (Whether an article that might arguably be subject to such a tag should be mainpaged is a separate question, and I haven't investigated the merits of this one.) The issue can be raised again tomorrow when the article is off the main page. ] 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::The fact that the article is prominently displayed on the Main Page is more reason to fix the problem, not less.
:::As a procedural matter, removing the tag was very bad form. The tag clearly states it is not to be removed while the matter is being discussed.
:::As a practical matter, we need to restore the tag as a service to our readers. We have to warn the unsuspecting reader that the article they are about to read is riddled with loaded language. Otherwise, they will get the wrong impression about how we strive to employ neutral language in our writing. ]\<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Biased articles don't get to be the main page featured article. If someone is adding an NPOV tag to the featured article, that person is wrong (almost automatically and by definition), and we don't let it stay there. Johntex's in in a minority of one here, and his arguments have been totally debunked on the talk page - which is par for the course when someone adds a tag to the daily featured article. ] 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::#Actually Raul, it is a tenant of Misplaced Pages that Featured Articles are still not perfect. If we thought they were perfect, we would protect them from editing. We don't do that, so obviously there is room for improvement.
::::#As a case in point, the recently featured ] was also slapped with a NPOV tag as a direct result of the exposure it got on the Main Page. However, instead of reverting, as you did, we left the tag in place and discussed matters on the Talk page.
::::#As for biased articles reaching the Main Page, articles get to the Main Page pretty much on your say so, since you are the Featured Article director. I don't think you, or I, or anyone, are infallible. Do you disagree? Is it possible that you missed something?
::::#Your views that Intelligent Design is ludicrous are quite clear. Could your dislike for ID could be clouding your usually clear judgment? Could problems in this article have slipped through simply because you are over-worked? Perhaps the job of FA director needs to be split between more people. I don't know. I don't know how the flaws in this article remained in it all the way to the Main Page. I just know the article has some subtle bias that needs to be corrected. I know that my attempts to correct the problem have been met with knee-jerk status-quoism and stonewalling. As such, the article is disputed and the tag should remain.
::::#As to your assertion that I am "a minority of one", please check again. ], ], ], ], and ] have all either questioned the use of "claim" in the article and/or provided some measure of support for the points I am making. ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::#Update: you can add ] to the list of those who are questioning the usage of "claim". He has even started a new section on the topic and seems to be directly disagreeing with you, Raul. ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies to all and thanks to ] for the unblock. I saw edit warring and blocked to prevent further disruption. It's now clear that there's no need. ] 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:The lesson of this is we need more knowlegable people willing to be FAC reviewers; if the article has a POV issue it should never have become featured. ]&nbsp;] 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::With controversial topics such as ], ] and the like, there will ''always'' be someone who claims the article has POV problems even if the article is as NPOV as humanly possible. ] 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::True, but this exposes a fault in having Raul as the FA director- he is deeply involved in such issues, and thus there is a clear ] here. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Is he deeply ''involved'' or just deeply ''interested''? If he has extensively edited the articles and discussed improvements on the talk page, then obviously he is involved and should have recused himself from the decision about whether they became featured articles or not. If he merely lightly edits a wide range of environmental science and science articles (which would not be surprising given his background), then that shouldn't be a problem. ] 08:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Either way, he is the ''sole'' FA director- which means that ''every'' article, no matter what his opinion on the subject, goes to him. While I'm going to assume good faith that Raul wouldn't let that interfere, my involvement with him suggests that he ''has'' let personal disputes with other users get in the way. Of course, I am not one to comment on the POV of an issue I know only by cursory overview, and so can't comment on COI issues there. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: This is the first time I've heard any allegations that Raul might be less than objective in managing the FA process. I have a lot of gripes with that process, but form what I've seen his part in it is limited to handling the administrivia -- closing nominations where the conversation has ended, reading through the discussions & counting noses to decide which articles passed, & so forth. He has been in charge of this part of Misplaced Pages because he has been reliable & thorough. If you think he has too much power shuffling the papers related to this process, go ahead & either offer to help or volunteer a friend. I'm sure he would welcome the assistence to handle this largely unacknowledged & unthanked task. -- ] 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

New {{user|Jimmy Hammerfist}} is removing Chinese characters from such articles as ] and ]. Is this an improper activity? I've reverted him once on each article and another User has reverted him once. If others think this is no big deal, I won't press it. I just want a second opinion. ] 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He has now added to my request for him to stop on his Talk page, "I will continue to remove any Chinese or other language references as I see fit.". I won't push it if I'm in the wrong here. ] 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an English-Chinese dictionary. As well, it has a Chinese language section. Chinese characters have no place in an English language encyclopedia entry on Pandas, bamboo, or anything else and I will continue to remove any such characters I come across in Chinese or any other language where the inclusion of such serves no good educational purpose. ] 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) I may be wrong (and I'm also not an admin), but ] seems to support this. ](] , ]) 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:: You are correct; there is nothing wrong with putting Chinese characters/translations for subjects that are Chinese-related. <b>] ]</b> 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::It should be up to local consensus on whether the information is relevant enough to be in the article. Certainly there is no site-wide consensus that Chinese characters are forbidden; that would be nonsense. In the case of ] and ], my opinion is that the information is relevant and useful. One of the joys of Misplaced Pages is that it can jump into foreign alphabets or writing systems to use the exact original name of something. ] 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree. Adding native spellings of names for things that are primarily known by those names is perfectly normal, useful practice, and removing them without good and sufficient reason verges on vandalism. Doing so ''systematically'', I think, crosses that line. The fact that Chinese names are written in Chinese characters (which MediaWiki is expressly designed to support) should make no difference to that principle. -- ] 19:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says as follows:

:''This edition of Misplaced Pages is in English, so do not use characters or romanized forms excessively, such as for common words, making this a kind of English–Chinese bilingual edition. However, if the term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters, which will be useful to the content of the article. Proper nouns' Chinese characters should also be supplied, unless it is Wikified and the target article in the English Misplaced Pages contains the characters.''

The words "Giant Panda" and "bamboo" are ''common words'', not ''proper nouns''. They are not the names of particular persons or places, such as Mao Zedong or Beijing. They are also not obscure words lacking established translations. As such, the insertion of the Chinese-language words for "Giant Panda" and "bamboo" is recommended against by the Manual of Style. --] 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== Legal threats due to deletion of a company article ==

An IP, {{user|82.46.194.57‎}} has had his company's article deleted, ]. He made a talk page, saying this:

{{quote|Hi, this is the creator of the page.

I would just like to say, categorically, that I am totally outraged by the way this article has been treated. Notice after notice reading about "falsities" and "nonsense" - How dare you say such things about a Film Company that has striven for excellence since its birth. No where in the article does it promote the company and The work that the members of this company have put in trying to become a recognized cause is phenomenal so for a website like yours to criticize is frankly soul destroying.

Five Hour Films take this as a personal attack on their professionalism and credibility by Misplaced Pages. Not a single false-hood is written into this and your administrators would have found this very easy to see if they had done research rather than jump in head first with their almighty opinion.

I can assure that in Britain, responses from companies in this manner and tone are taken as SLANDER. If this continues Misplaced Pages can add another move of legal action to the ever growing list they seem to be ammasing against them.

Any further remarks from your company I would rather recieve through private e-mail as this is highly un-professional and embarrassing for both parties involved.

Thank - you.}}

<span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,]]] (])'''''</span> 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:"Ever-growing list"? ] 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Couldn't that deemed to be libelous? :) ---- ] 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Considering the nonsense at ], this looks like a troll, to me. ] 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Not to mention that fact that it's "libel" not "slander". ''And I can assure you'' that in Britain truth is always an adequate defence against either :) ---- ] 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Are all edits of this nature trolls. An ip address makes an edit like the one described above - the ip is a troll - is that right? Please don't call me a troll or a sockpuppet. I'm just making a suggestion which may be helpful] 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Said suggestion is ] the way it is written. -'']''<small><sup>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</sup></small> 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::"''in Britain''" it happens, although this user thinks he knows better, that it depends on whether you live in Scotland, England Ireland or Wales. It is definitly permitable in Scotland and England - I have a father who is profesionaly involved in the former and the latter is very similar but with a less effective system - and i find it hard to believe Wales and Ireland are really that backward. May I suggest we block him for trolling? ] <sup>] ]</sup> 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::yes because we are all trolls - right?] 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with Blood Red Sandman , legal threats are legal threats. If said user wants to contact the foundation they should do so rather than making threats. PS I assume Blood Red Sandman is referring to ] when they include Ireland as a part of Britain - because the Republic of Ireland aint part of Britain--] <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Without wanting to stray of subject RoI isn't a part of the United Kingdom, whether it is a ] 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Why are all ips trolls. Please explain. your ]ing me.] 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Misplaced Pages and it's community has the right to delete any article it sees fit. If you continue to make legal threats on wikipedia your editing privilege will be revoked. Is that clear? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Are you now accusing me of being the company who wrote that rubbish just because im an ip? ips seem to be very unwelcome here.] 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes, I meant NI. And 86.141.66.176, law accross the UK (indeed, accross the civilised world) allows some incredible damaging things to be said about an organisation. May I also point out, though, that nothing degrading was said about the company. It was deleted for lacking any sign of importance, because, as the article stood, it did indeed lack any sign of importance. It may be the best company in the world - nobody said it wasn't - but it shows no evidence that it has done anything more significant than countless other similar organisations. Please understand that not notable does not mean it's not good. Also, no-one said you are the company, but you admitted yourself to at least have a connection with the company - you 'know' that "Five Hour Films take this as a personal attack on their professionalism and credibility". ] <sup>] ]</sup> 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Please read and understand before you reply - I beg you - I don't particularly care that that article which I didn't write was deleted and I don't particularly care if you dont believe that i'm not the same person. You have the right to delete whatever is inappropriate. What I do care about is that all ips seem to be unwelcome here. All ips are accused of trolling, sockpuppeting or something. Why?] 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Not ''all'' of them are - the problem is that there is a largish number of such people, and most of them happen to use IPs. But, look at your edits, you gotta admit they can be taken to look quite troll-like? ] <sup>] ]</sup> 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Because most anonIP editors '''are''' trolls, vandals, or sockpuppets, or make baseless legal threats. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::So why don't you just force everyone to become registered by making it easier to register and banning ips.] 23:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I don't believe it could be any easier to register than it is now. You simply choose a username and password...that's it. You don't even need an email address or any personal information. - ] ] 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Maybe for experienced users like yourself but not for new people. Firstly it takes a while to figure out where the register button is. To a new person wikipedia looks a mess with buttons everywhere that have no meaning to new people. Then when you do find the register button problems - such as not being able to see the letters. A new person being directed to request an account would have no idea what to do. The reason I haven't registered is because I only make occassional spelling corrections and watch discussions where I see ips being blocked every second.] 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My comments concerning trolling were addressed at the IP who was making the legal threats, and then going in and creating/working on an article supposedly about the head of this organization, whose father was Louis XIV. You don't think that's trolling? ] 23:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I dont think its trolling but I think its stupidand not something you would find in an encyclopedia. As for legal threats, do they mean anything - I mean I doubt anyones ever actually filed a lawsuit against wikimedia.] 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:(deindent) Making legal threats, even frivolous ones, is ] --] 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::You mean frowned upon by the community. ] 23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::No, he '''means''' "not allowed". If you do make a legal threat, you will be blocked to ensure you don't exacerbate situations through Misplaced Pages. -'']''<small><sup>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</sup></small> 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Ye but don't you still say frowned upon? Community, not bureaucracy?] 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::*<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: {{{2|}}} | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small> ---- ] 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::No, it's one of the rules. "Official Policy" level. ]. If you make one, and any admin notices, you're going to be blocked. ] 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Tossing aroung legal threats also makes you look like a . ] 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::More importantly it has a major anti-community impact. See our article on "]". ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|Not an incident, direct comments to the Village Pump please.}}
The legality of a photo in this article has come under some debate at ]. The photo has been removed and replaced several time so far. Disregarding my reasons for thinking the image should be permanently removed, it is my opinion that if there is a question of the legality of content, it should be removed until the issue is properly settled, for it's better to err on the side of caution. I think the photo should be removed and the page protected until this can be properly sorted out. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''03:54, 10/13/2007''</div>
:Wow. So, it's OK to have trivia, but not an image that goes against your morality. Well done. - ] 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:Woo. Only on Misplaced Pages, folks... ] 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Waiter, i'll have soup instead, tonight. Simple reminder, WP:CENSOR. We aren't censored, we provide it in educational, non-salacious manner. ANy elgit reason for complaint? ] 03:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't see any discussion on the talk page about the image at all, mostly name changes. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::See ] (anchored link) for the discussion. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''04:02, 10/13/2007''</div>
::::Legality where? Which country? Which laws? ---- ] 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please see the discussion, as I'm ill-equipped to accurately present the issue myself. I've requested that the editor who brought up the legal question (]) to comment here though. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''04:08, 10/13/2007''</div>
Do we really need to have this discussion on three different pages? -] 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't need administrator attention, please keep the discussion on one page. ]] 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:No sufficient argument has been made so far in the discussion to justify the hasty removal of the photo. From my own personal bias, it isn't clear to me that the photo qualifies as pr0n per the document being quoted. But notwithstanding, the upshot of the discussion was to bring it to the Foundation, which seems to me like the only reasonable next step. Illustrative photos of sexual and deviant behaviour have been on WP since the beginning. Let's wait for the clear word from the Foundation that they have to go before removing any based upon our interpretation of the quoted document. ] 04:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Unless you think the page should be locked down for edit warring over the image, this is hardly an "incident" for admin attention. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== User Erwin Morland suspicous activity... ==

] recreated the page ] imediately after an AFD closed to delete it, an AFD he opposed. As soon as that article was speedied per G4 as a recreation of deleted material, he went to ] and entered Gay Nigger Association of America as a dab article, an article with an historic AFD history of its own... See ] Given the number of edits this person has on their edit page, and their ] making move to GNAA, an historicly contentious moment in Misplaced Pages history, this may need someone to keep an eye on. See user's , though deleted articles don't appear. --]|]|] 04:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Blocked. ] ] 04:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:They should have been perma-blocked at that first edit to ]. ] 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== DGG is not a neutral admin ==

I would like to bring to all of your notice that DGG is not a neutral admin, or at least his admin actions do not suggest so. DGG, it appears, has deleted the older comments I had posted to his talk page concerning these issues.
I suggest if he cannot be neutral he should please give up his admin rights. I am speaking with valid reference. He have been very well aware of the articles on ] and ]; in fact he created a disambiguation page for ] where he linked in both of these. Now, today he have deleted the list of keywords and certain other material from the ] page while he has not done so with the ] page. The keywords were added to the HPS page yesterday, but they have all through been there on the HPL page.
DGG explain his actions and the lack of neutrality.
Further, the chain of events go like this. There was an older page on Hindawi which referred to the Hindawi Programming System. He first changed its contents to an advertisement like article on ], without ever discussing it. Then he move the company related article to a different name and redirected Hindawi to the new page. Please open '''any''' other encyclopedia and see what ] refers to.
Even though I assume good intent, I found a DGG comment on another admins' page requesting support in dealing with me . This was outrageous.
I am really let down by the manner in which DGG is handling his admin responsibilities. Please let the _open_ spirit of WP survive DGG - an honest humble request. Please be neutral. When you marked Hindawi Programming System for deletion even though it was not at all intended so, I presumed good intent and believed the article needed restructuring. Why then do you behave so differently about ] where the advertisement intent of an completely unreferenced article has been admitted clearly by the author?

For those of you who may be interested ] is a well referenced and reviewed piece of open source software which has been well recognised internationally, with even ] reviewing it. Unfortunately its name clashes with a commercial entity. The rest is all evident.
Is WP another yellow pages?

I expect an honest and well balanced / well judged response from the community. ] 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler
] 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

:I'd just like to point out that any editor, admins included, are allowed to remove whatever they want from their talk pages. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''04:51, 10/13/2007''</div>

::Especially when they're delightful material such as . I don't understand why any of this has to do with him being an admin, or "neutral", or why it's anything but a content dispute with someone who has a COI in this respect. --] 04:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::To reinforce Equazcion's point, I have also been told by administrators that removing messages from talk pages is actually okay, because they are still available in the talk page history. As pertains to DGG, I have found him to be quite neutral and objective in any of my dealings with him and I overall think he is one of the finest administrators that I have interacted with on this site. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Why is he being non neutral then? This is explained above with respect to the way he has dealt with the article on ] and all the related articles. WP has lost its spirit, as per the comments above. It should probably be called a yellow pages and not an encyclopedia if articles about commercial entities are given prefernce over encyclopedic articles. ] 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler
:::Agreed fully. I sometimes disagree with DGG on specific issues (it would be a dull world if everyone agreed on everything) but I have never found him anything other than civil, fair and knowledgeable. Remarks like and , in contrast, show ] to be needlessly overbearing. ] 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::DGG's boringly neutral. Not even I can find fault with him as an administrator. He'll also listen to you if you put your case out and may agree to change something because you've offered sufficient evidence. It is hard to follow what you're saying here or accusing him of, though. Maybe sticking with the facts at issue rather than your perception of DGG and extraneous issues about talk page deletions could clear the matter up. ] 06:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Support DGG as well. I've also dealt with Hi pedler as well. There is also some serious COI concerns. I've even been accused of working with DGG simply for having commented on possibly articles from Hi pedler. Again, Hi pedler, you need to be more specific about what you find not neutral from DGG. -- ] (]) 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I also support DGG's neutrality. While I don't always agree with him, he always does his best (IMO) to maintain a polite and neutral atmosphere. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::As someone who have often disagreed with DGG on AfD I have to second that. I have never found him to be anything more than a guy who presents his point of view politely and often quite convinsingly. Move along, there is nothing to see here. ] 06:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::We should preserve this little set of commentaries, because I think DGG's neutrality is the only thing this set of editors has ever and ever will agree upon. Can we get it framed in gold or something? ] 06:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know that I've ever run into any of the other editors here other than DGG (who technically isn't here, but...) ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 06:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Ha. It's true. The fact that people on both sides of many disputes agree on this means that he really must be neutral. I especially agree with the "...boringly so" comment, it's funny someone said that, as I was thinking the same thing. As for this particular dispute, which I'm sure the OP is getting frustrated that no one is commenting on, it's kind of hard to follow. I can't speak for everyone else but I myself am just confused by the situation as the OP has described it, and was waiting for DGG to come and clear this up for us. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''07:03, 10/13/2007''</div>
: Why was one article treated differently than the other? Without the specifics (your complaint was excessively broad, to the point of not actually saying anything, and just a quite unconvincing appeal to emotion), I can't say, but in general, what happens to one article in the deletion process ]. I can't say I've seen DGG do anything wrong here. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you every one. The few words I wrote above are _too long_ ? What should its length have been? Here are the specifics
* 1. Now, today '''he has deleted the list of keywords''' and certain other material from the ] '''while he has not done so with the ]'''. The ]s were added to the HPS page yesterday, but they have all through been there on the HPL page. Refer ]
* 2. There was an older page on Hindawi which referred to the Hindawi Programming System. He first changed its contents to an advertisement like article on ], without ever discussing it. Then he moved the company related article to a different name and redirected Hindawi to the new page. Please open '''any''' other encyclopedia and see what ] refers to.
Is that specific enough? ] 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

::Some more points:
* The name of the commercial entity is ] and not ]
* DGG did not deal with the article on ]. Why? Because it did not clash with the commercial entity's name?
* DGG deals with ] in one way. He keeps deleting 3rd party verifiable contents on the article. He marked it speedy as well. But he does not do the same for ]. Please read the relevant discussion pages. ]'s author even admitted he intends it to be a means for the world to know about it.
This is my last comment on this topic here. One more thing, Ricky81682 has made a last comment on ] discussion page in a manner which leaves more deserving of an admin.

The major point here is why doesn't DGG discuss something before deleting when it is a contested topic.
] 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

:I do not always agree with DGG- far from it. However, I have to support him completely in this instance.--] 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::In view of all the support above, comment might seem superfluous, but I offered last night to re-examine the balance between the two programming system articles--I gather there is an intellectual property rights dispute between them--and to invite a specialist if we still disagreed (as I have no personal experience of how to program in Hindi), upon which Hi pedlar preferred to bring it here. But I first noticed this after an attempt by both Hi pedlar and some anon. to remove the article on the competitive programming language and on a publisher whose name resembled that of the company whose article he supports. First I've heard of ], but as Hi pedlar seems to have been editing it, someone else might want to take a look at it. But Hi pedlar is right about the name of the publisher, about which he might be more familiar than I, so I'm moving it from H.P. Company to ... H. P. Corporation as he just now suggested.18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (This was posted by ] but does not seem to have his name for some reason. ] 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

:::In full disclosure, the comment from me that Hi pedler is discussing is . -- ] (]) 01:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*I'm personally positive DGG isn't nuetral... I'll be damned if I can prove it though...] 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Thank you DGG for the response. As about an expert taking a look at these articles, well I have personally wanted the same all through. I understand that WP is not the forum for deciding the IP rights conflict between the two programming systems, and I have earlier said the same in as many words. Request DGG to maintain the composure he has shown above and be a bit patient in applying speedy. Lets have a healthy attitude towards developing positive content. As about getting my contributions reviewed in general - I'll be the happiest. ] 05:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

::: Another point - '''DGG has barred me from editing''' the above refernced pages. This is '''a violation of my right to free speech''' and I take it seriously. I understand the rules to WP hold their ground but DGG has no business barring my fundamental rights. ] 06:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

: Only '''one''' person is positive that DGG is not neutral - amazing! ] 06:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

::You have ]. Freedom of speech provides that the ] cannot abridge your ] to ] in ]. This right has no effect on whether or not the ''private'' entity Misplaced Pages allows you to edit its content. --]

::: ha ha ha... ho ho ho... I feel like I should burst out laughing... why was I wasting my time in the above then?? ] 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

== We have a problem ==

From ]'s monthly newletter: http://www.b3ta.com/newsletter/issue298/

>> Quopedia vandalism <<
"Hello b3ta Towers," blurps danbull45, "We
would like to divulge to you the following very
sinister secret. Using a variety of aliases and
cunning page edits, we have now subtly shopped
Status Quo into nearly 200 different photos on
Misplaced Pages. Our aim is for every image in
Misplaced Pages to have Teh Quo hidden somewhere
within it. We'd like to show you the fruits of
our labour, but for obvious reasons can't
reveal the location of each image - so here is
a taster of our handiwork. Perhaps your
newsletter's readers could aid us in our
glorious mission?"

Looks like the vandalism was caught, but what other images have they been fiddling with? - ] 07:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Ooh, clever little buggers. I've filed a CheckUser request, just in case it might help. —] <small>(])</small> 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Perhaps we should have a policy that any revisions to images that don't change that image in any visible way should always be reverted. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">] • '']/]'' • ''21:35, 10/13/2007''</div>
:::That would not have helped in this case. Further details omitted per ], though it's not ''that'' hard to figure out. —] <small>(])</small> 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Main Page image incident ==

]
Oops. The main page image seems to have been vandalised. Some handwritten c-upload notice! ] 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:The image can be seen . Looking at the history of ], we see an edit summary of "I am sooo sorry", followed by a revert a minute later. Do we have to make points about c-upload in front of all our readers? ] 07:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Shouldn't have been done. Comment left at ]. - ] 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::(ec)Yes, I kind of violated WP:POINT there. See ] which I posted before I saw this thrad. --] - '']'' - ] 07:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I grovel - I changed the image to try and settle a disagreement over what should be the best image. I had intended to then full protect it on Commons but was distracted. Someone decided to make a ] and upload a vandalised image on Commons to the same title. The point (though it could have been made more kindly) is well taken - be careful in updating templates transcluded onto the mainpage. Either upload a local copy or protect the Commons one... <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:WJB, I don't suppose this incident might prompt you to become the first admin bot operator on Commons, as well? ].--] - ] 07:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I did make the initial report (without checking WP:AN), and I don't normally defend this sort of thing, but for a one-minute thing it was pretty harmless. As we have seen, it did make WjBScribe (our new admin bot overlord) sit up and take notice! Now, who wants to write an '''admin''' bot program to make sure this never happens again? :-) ] 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Having said that, I wonder whether a creative WP:POINT violation could be thought up to drive the point home to Jeffrey O. Gustafson that some readers will have seen this? Or would that thought end up drowning in its own irony. ] 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}
Titoxd, your pen is running out of ink... :-) ] 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
: It was a pencil, actually... ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What did I tell all of you about deleting the main page? I'm tentatively against it. ] 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

===Honestly, WTF?===

I discovered that the TFA image for today (Battleship) was not uploaded locally. Again. Honestly, its not that hard, people. --] - '']'' - ] 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:That one is protected on commons. Was it not when you wrote this? —] (]) 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::I discovered it, mentioned it on IRC, and a commons admin protected it after the fact. The fact still remains: An Image Was On The Main Page Unprotected, And People Don't Get It. --] - '']'' - ] 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::It was fucking transcluded on to ] which is fucking cascade protected and it was transcluded there for quite some fucking time so it was been fucking protected on commons long before your fucking message here. Shall I also start inserting ''fuck'' into every fucking edit summary too? Is that some new fucking trend you're starting? —] (]) 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Ah... yes... now I remember why I stopped checking whether images on the Main Page are unprotected. Zzyzx11 told me about that page awhile ago. Thanks for reminding me that I ''wasn't'' imagining that. -- ''']''' 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well, as Jeffrey O. Gustafson has so gently pointed out, Zzyzx11's methodology isn't fool-proof. In the Templar's case, the main page image was switched out for another so Zzyzx11 was left with the wrong image commons protected. It doesn't appear DYK images are ever added to Zzyzx11's cascade protection so those always need to be checked as well. —] (]) 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::It's semi-protected on Commons; is it supposed to be fully protected? However, to be fair, the image for TOFA basically just ''appears'' on the Main Page automagically. I suppose you could ask Raul to protect images he puts in the TOFA templates, but beyond that, the fact that images go on the Main Page (under TOFA) unprotected is as much your fault as it any admin's. Images that are actually put on the Main Page by people &ndash; in ITN and DYK &ndash; are a different story. -- ''']''' 02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::No, it is fully protected by way of being transcluded on to a cascade fully protected page as I mentioned above. The additional semi-protection was unnecessary (which neither Jeffrey O. Gustafson nor the semi-protecting commons admin seem to have noticed). —] (]) 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Might I suggest (unless this is some form of joke on his part that I just don't 'get') Jeffery may wish to take a Wikibreak? While I understand Misplaced Pages is uncensored, I find swearing for the sake of it moderately distasteful. ] 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
How hard would it be to have a bot that would check every 2 minutes the images displayed on the main page, make sure they are protected (even going so far as to attempt to edit the commons image description page), and if they aren't, post a warning in some suitable location? --] 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Wasn't there a bot to do this? Wasn't cascading protection created so that the bot would not be needed? --] 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The bot was more aimed at templates, I think. The problem was that templates were staying unprotected and getting pictures of male anatomy added to them. But cascading protection doesn't help with images still on Commons. Only admins can overwrite a Commons image with a local one, so we would either need an adminbot to upload all of the images locally (in which case cascading protection would take over), protect the images on Commons if they are not protected (needs to be a commons adminbot), or make a list and yell+scream loudly when something isn't protected. --] 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Date-specific sub-categories of to be deleted ==

{{resolved}}
See ] ... quite a few of those categories are old and now empty. If someone would be willing to delete the empty ones, I would appreciate it. :-) Thanks, ] 07:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:I deleted the ones older than 20 days. --] 07:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:: Thank you! The ones up to and including October 4th are also empty. Anyone willing to delete? :-) --] 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::They're all deleted now (I deleted some, and another admin started at the other end). --] 17:14, 13 October 2007 (]]])
:::: Thanks to you both. :-) --] 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] resuming edit war in ] ==

{{Userlinks|Student erotica}} Resuming an edit war documented . Editor has been blocked at least twice now from different IP addresses, the latest for 3RR evasion using sockpuppets. There has been substantial Talk page discussion over this, on various User talk pages as well as in ].

Is this an "Incident" or is there a better place to report this one? / ]<small> ] ]</small> 08:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== Return of PatPeter ==

I'm hesitant, though I think it's likely. So I'll directly ask for others to view:

Is ], ]?

I find him creating sub-pages of PatPeter's userpages. He's setting up the same "rules" (and using the same wording) in userboxes. He seems to have the same tone, and uses similar phrasing
("Seriously"). And he's editing inactive userpages based on his "rules".

I ran into him changing userboxes against concensus at ], and ]. Though the more I talked with him, and the more I looked into his edit history, the more I think he is. He even started editing when PatPeter stopped.

<s>However, I don't think I can request a CU, as this might fall under "just curious".</s> (It looks like it would fall under "F".)

I'd appreciate it if others would check this out and offer insight. - ] 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:See ] for more information. - ] 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::Possible - let's see how the checkuser goes. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== Harassment by admin ==

This admin, {{User|Moreschi}} together with {{User|Folantin}} is I believe harrasing me. After a ] discussion (in which these two were instrumental) I believe they are watching my edits and trying to obstruct me where possible. I don't mind to discuss anything with them, but when {{User|Folantin}} calls me a 'chauvinist', and I subsequently add a comment and remove this line
, {{User|Moreschi}} not only readds the personal attack, but also removes my comment, twice, despite my clearly noted objections.] 10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:I'm just trying to keep an eye on your little mission to exaggerate the "Dutchness" of ], Rex. Somebody has to. I'm sick to the back teeth of editors whose only interest in the subject of an article is their ethnicity, nationality, linguistic affiliation etc. etc.. If we don't watch them we end up with ] like this . --] 11:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for '''proving''' my suspicions. As you refered to refered to WP:LAME, I assume you're also familiar with WP:POINT? You know what pisses me off? Editors who do not edit wikipedia to improve it, but to activly seek trouble and conflict with other users without any objective reason and merely prejudice.] 11:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::You must be pretty mad at yourself then. There's a pretty good reason why you're banned from going anywhere near articles on German subjects (which happens to include quite a few members of the ]). --] 11:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Read the outcome Folantin, I know what I can and can't do and this isn't ''can't do''. Anyway, do keep talking like this, It makes it easier for the admins to see who's doing what and why. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::I'm sure they'll also note that you were blocked on September 30 for 24 days . On October 1, you were granted a "restrictive unblock" to take part in the Community Sanctions debate about you. Not sure that your recent editing history is really covered by that. --] 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Actually it is, though it's exempalry of your behaviour that despite being unsure and not knowing the facts, you still have a clear opinion on others. I tend to work differently. I for example, '''am sure''' that this doesnt matter at all. Being blocked doesn't give '''you''' a letter of marque to obstruct, harrass and offend without reprisal. Even though you yourself seem to think so.] 12:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::'''ADD:''' . ] 12:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Lest we forget, Rex's current block is for ''WP:POINT, persistent conflictual edits, chronical failure to work for the project rather than use it for personal crusades''. No doubt he'll be going after the blocking admin ] for harrassment too. --] 12:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Rex has a long history of problematic editing. He persistently pushes a highly pro-Dutch POV on the one hand, and an strongly anti-German one on the other. This is well-known, and calling a spade a spade is hardly a personal attack. Even if it was, NPA does not really permit the removal of such attacks. Rex's complaining here is a complete waste of everyone's time, and his POV-pushing is getting worse and worse, and more and more flagrant. If he doesn't start editing neutrally he'll have to be banned altogether. ] <sup> ]</sup> 12:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know wether to laugh or cry, you '''removed''' a comment and readded an attack. '''Twice'''. No matter how many blocks you digg up. It is not an excuse. I provide sources and explained my actions. If anyone here is editing based on POV its you.] 12:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::This is complete rubbish. Everyone knows what type of editor you are. This is really self-evident. No point denying the obvious. Remember the "German peasant blood", anyone? If you don't, . ] <sup> ]</sup> 12:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::The what-now? Let's tone it down. I'm having difficulties following what going on here, but I'm not seeing any harassment, either. ] 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Hey, that's not fair, you used a ] 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::All I'm seeing here is a load of bitch slapping, but no harassment. ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:You're still on probation, Rex. We're '''supposed to be''' watching your edits. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 12:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Exactly. It's about maintaining Misplaced Pages's accuracy in the face of known POV-pushers. It was pretty obvious Rex would head straight back to his ]. Rex wasn't happy when I agreed with ] and provided sources showing that Beethoven's ancestors were Flemish, thus fulfilling ]. Rex then went into some long, convoluted argument trying to prove that there were no Flemings at the time and so Ludwig's granddad was obviously Dutch, even though he came from what's now Belgium rather than the Netherlands. Most biographies of Beethoven spend very little time on the composer's more distant family background, usually contenting themselves with noting he was of "Flemish ancestry" before getting on to the details of his life and music. This being Misplaced Pages, of course, editor priorities seem to be exactly the reverse. --] 13:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::(ec) I see no harassment and I also see that Rex Germanus was released early from a block only to defend himself, but instead has simply returned to the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. The previous block should be resumed and possibly lengthened. —] (]) 12:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Agreed with wknight94. I'm not seeing any harassment here, just a return to the old ways. You're on probation, of course you're being watched, that's sort of the point. 'Ad-hoc additional topic or article bans' - here's your kicker. ~ ] 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do we still have {{tl|rpa}}? That's just a recepy for trouble, seeing how ] is long dead and buried. ] 13:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:Last time I checked WATCHING does not involve obstructing or making offensive comments. I for one, am able to watch things WITHOUT calling people chauvinist or readding such attacks and removing comments. Especially an admin ought to know better. ] 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::With that said, when is the 24-day block going to resume? Shall I reinstate it myself? —] (]) 14:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::The block was abandond after WP:CSB. Days ago.. How easy admins forget that this discussion isn't about me, but others.] 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Hmmm. There's a rider on ]'s comment: ''any related disruption will be taken very seriously and will be swiftly followed by an immediate 1 month block.'' --] 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe we're still dealing with this guy. ] 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Done deal. One month block. If this thread isn't disruption, I don't know what is. - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Phew! Thank heavens for that. --] 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Agree with this block; any edits beyond his own defense (reason for restricted unblock) where a favour, Rex should have been careful not to abuse this leniency. That admins (who are not his old enemies) were thinking about disruptive edits are (IMHO) in this situation enough for a block. ] 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::This is the '''ninth''' time Rex Germanus has been blocked since being put on probation. I'm thinking the ArbCom might be interested in hearing that. Seems to me that serious bans have been levied for less disruptive cases. —] (]) 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Coincidentally I was just reviewing this case and thought "when you have to use the vertical scrollbar to see someone's complete block log, there are problems other than monitor size." ] 20:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Not seeking, per se, to be hard-assed about it, but with only ''half'' that number of legitimate blocks we've community banned people beforehand. Is anyone going to ArbCom with this, or do we want to do this here and now? ➔ ''']''' isn't wearing pants 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:Since he has already crossed the ArbCom's path, an entry at ] may be best. —] (]) 20:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::...and this will write itself; or are we waiting for a volunteer or something? ➔ ''']''' isn't wearing pants 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::: For now, I would say, let him sit out his block of one month; and let this be a last warning; the actual German topic banning may not have been clearly communicated. I would suggest posting a message on his talkpage stating something like:<br>
::: ''You are banned from engaging in any type of edits concerning German naming for an indefinite time span. Any breach may result in a block without further discussion. You are also put on indefinite 1RR parole. Incivility of you will be no longer tolerated. Breach of these conditions may lead to an indefinite community ban (ie you being kicked out of the Wiki project). ''
::: Or a sinilar warning. If he decides to be disrupitve again after something like that, I will no longer defend him (as I did in the past because he also made many worthwhile edits)] 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::I am not convinced that further leniency will do any good at all. I have requested a siteban from Arbcom. If Rex Germanus realizes that his actions have real, lasting consequences, he may change his approach. A siteban need not be permanent. If he chooses to take a more constructive approach, we should welcome him to return. Until then, we should not allow him to continue ]. - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::It's probably best not to get into a block / unblock /reblock etc. situation. Let's let the current one-month block run itself out, then at the next offense it will be indef. ] 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Arbcom are familiar with the situation, and should have a chance to decide if this is the final straw, or not. If they choose not to ban him this time, I agree that next time should be an indef. Let's see what they say. - ] <sup>]</sup> 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet blocked, but not sockpuppeteer? ==

A few days ago, I reported a possible sockpuppeteer at ]. I also filed a request for checkuser at ]. This morning, I learned that an admin had blocked the sockpuppet ''but not the puppeteer''. Another user informed me on my talkpage that puppeteers are blocked for two weeks for their first offense. I tried to contact the blocking admin, but no response yet. Basically, I am asking that a sockpuppeteer be blocked. Thank you. ''''']<sup>(])</sup>''''' 13:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:This is an extreme newbie who is skating on the edge of an indefblock. Additionally, s/he has stopped editing anyway. I'd recommend watching to see if they return. If they do and are still up to no good, we can indef. Otherwise, consider the matter closed. They're probably on to another account anyway - hopefully a good-faith one. —] (]) 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, but shouldn't they be blocked anyway? The puppet was clearly used to evade a block. ''''']<sup>(])</sup>''''' 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if sockpuppeteers should be blocked for as long as their sockpuppets unless they continually use them to ] the encyclopedia. I'd say give them a chance to contribute, and if they refuse to do so constructively, this could warrant something far more serious. After all, I think that they deserve a second chance (as they were not fully aware of our policies at the time). Cheers, '''( ]] )''' 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== Deletion of username-change redirects ==

Hi, in September I changed my username from '''Rambutan'''. At the time, I requested that no redirects be created, and was told that this was fine, but the change would still be in the log. I agreed to this, but then later decided not to have them deleted.

However, today I changed my mind and tried to get them deleted. After trying to get attention on IRC where I was abused by ST47, Wimt, NotASpy and Daniel-Bryant, the User: and User_talk: pages were deleted. ST47 then undeleted the User_talk: page. I re-requested speedy deletion, it was turned down by the rude Wimt, and I re-requested specifying more accurately my rationale. The page was protected by ST47.

My point is, suppose I hadn't changed my mind at the time of the rename, and they had been deleted then? Or supposed I'd had my User: and User_talk: pages deleted when I was Rambutan - no redirects would ever have been created. So why am I being denied this now? ] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:I certainly didn't intend to be at all rude, but the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what you were told on ], but renames are not made without redirects to the new username except in extremely mitigating circumstances (which, unless I'm missing something, I cannot see here). It causes unnecessary confusion to many people. ] <small><font color="red">(aka ])</font></small> 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::It's not a CSD because you deleted the CSD. I replaced it and the page was protected. As I explained, I had a rename '''on the basis that''' the redirects were deletable. Also, what's your comments on the second sentence of my last paragraph above? And why did NotASpy just boot me on IRC for notifying him/her that s/he's on ANI? ] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::In relation to that point, we don't delete user talk pages unless a user is invoking ] (i.e. leaving the project altogether) so that request would also have been turned down. ] <small><font color="red">(aka ])</font></small> 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::What's {{tl|db-userreq}} for, then? ] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Exactly what it says. User subpages. This does not include your talk page. ] <small><font color="red">(aka ])</font></small> 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Talk pages are not deleted because of the history that must be preserved within them. In this case, the talk page was moved to the new name's location, and that is not a valid reason for declining this deletion. Just delete the thing; it isn't the end of the world. - ] ] 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::There's no need for these pages to be deleted, the user in question will have left a link to his userpage or talk page through his signature any time he has signed a page, should anybody then wish to contact the user in question, it is made much easier through the retention of these redirects. Not every user is aware of the user rename log or how to use it. ] 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::You were booted from irc for trolling. Also, I cannot see how the other users specified have broken any policy, unless I am missing something. :-) ] <small>]</small> 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I said the following, and that's ALL: "Just to let those of you who know who you are... you're on ANI". Where's this trolling, then? ] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Umm I (as NotASpy on IRC) did not boot you the first time, you rejoined with a different nick 4 seconds later, and I kicked you for rejoining in violation of a boot, as I have explained to you. ] 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:Why do you want to have the redirect deleted so desperately? <b>]</b>&nbsp;(]) 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::It matters? ] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes. Can you please explain why you no longer want people who click on your old signature to be forwarded to your present userpage and talkpage, thanks. ] 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I would prefer the greater privacy that it would offer. It cloaks me from the cr*p people who plagued me when I was Rambutan. The non-cr*p people who know their way round WP will use the rename log. I see some support for the deletion here - please go ahead and do it. --] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:* Folks, lets not get wrapped around the axle here, delete it. ] 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, can you articulate a good reason? ] 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I kind of . --] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

*I didn't see this, but I have already contacted ] about this. This is what I said:
::The user that used to be Rambutan has contacted me about your overturning the deletion of ]. As I understand it, if this user does not want any connection between their two accounts, then he is entitled to remove the links. As the page was moved, anyone who had edited the user talk page would now see that in their history as an edit of the moved page. If anyone gets curious then they can search the user rename log; there is also an entry in the block log which notes the connection, so the user is not able to hide their block history. I often see user talk pages put up for speedy deletion, and I remove the speedy tag from them; however this one is an exception. Do you object to my deleting the page?
:In my view the user's preference to delete the page is reasonable. ] 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::The problem here is that there is only one account, not two, and contributions found attributed under the name "Porcupine" have been signed Rambutan, the signature contains links to these pages we're discussing now. Users deserve to be able to visit a user or talk page when clicking on an old signature. ] 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I concur. I just spent 15 minutes reading the entire ] and related pages, and could not find ''any'' rule/guideline allowing/prohibiting/creating/deleting a redirect to the new user pages. {{tl|db-user}} (]) is fair game here and should not have been declined. That's my interpretation. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::If Rambutan was behaving in the exact same manner, but using two accounts, per ] he would likely be blocked, circumventing this policy using an account that has been usurped should not be possible, and I suggest deference to the aforementioned policy when considering removing links between an old and a new username for the same account. ] 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::If I run AWB over all incoming links to ] and ] and make them point to the new account, would that solve the problem? ] 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::If the user is annoyed that people who quarrelled with him on the old account will pursue him to the new one, he is surely free to start a new account from scratch and then tell no-one that there is a connection between the accounts. My discomfort with his proposal above is that he wants to both keep and lose his old history on Misplaced Pages. Since I don't think he was blocked under the old account, him starting from scratch without comment on a new account would probably not be criticized. ] 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::His account, prior to being renamed, had a fairly extensive block log, some of these blocks were overturned, however. The block log which was orphaned upon being renamed can be found here ]. ] 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the actions taken and, absent significant and cogent objection, intend to re-delete these pages based on the precedent established in ] and the ensuing unholding of my close there on DRV. The user's desire to avoid the redirects may seem quixotic, but edit-warring to insist on keeping userspace redirects of this nature is counter-productive and should not be encouraged. I caution Porcupine, however, that the title he gave some of the talkpage notifications regarding this dispute was unnecessarily confrontational and that he should avoid that in the future. ] 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you. ] 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:I would ask that we take these redirects to a suitable MfD/RfD, given the fact several administrators don't agree with their deletion. ] 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::That should not be necessary. Unless someone feels ''very'' strongly that these userspace redirects are ''essential'', they should be deleted summarily per the request of the user in question. A five-day community discussion of this issue would be, in my humble opinion, overkill. ] 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::One of the redirects has been deleted and undeleted already, and I feel, given this has happened, a discussion would more appropriate than further administrative action at this time. ] 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Is a discussion not what has happened here? ] 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Then I guess ST47 will have to state his case here, as the undeletion has no basis in policy or guideline. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, but the deletion has no basis in policy or guidelines either, so in this case, I strongly suggest deference to the sockpuppetry policy, which states that multiple accounts shall not be used to avoid scrutiny of other editors, in the case of users having been renamed, I would suggest multiple usernames should be treated as "multiple accounts". ] 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::] ''is'' a policy. Sock policy really doensn't apply here; the username change would have been denied if the intention was to evade scrutiny. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know if CSD U1 can apply here, because after a rename, the user and talk page redirects left behind are no longer the user and talk pages attached to an account, and aren't the work of the user requesting deletion, so I believe they would need to be considered under any suitable redirect speedy deletion criteria. There's also the question, what happens if another user registers the old username, so something we need to decide, is at what point does the user loose rights on their old username and it's associated user and talk pages, and the like. ] 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Everything you've just mentioned are all the more reason to just delete any old redirect; like you said, it's no longer attached to the new account. And a new user creating the old username may find the old redirect going "WTF, who stole my userpage!". <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::::I was present on IRC at the time that Rambutan started requesting that his user page be deleted, and proceed to threaten me with the disclosure of logs. I full agree with the undeletion. There has to be some accountability on this project. It is not a free-for-all - it is not ] which you can go back to a previous save with. The fact is that Rambutan has secured himself what appears to be a clean slate to anything but the most studious of observers, who actually know how to operate the user rename log (I don't - it will never work for me, whatever deatils I put in to whichever text box - and anyone who thinks I'm going to look through the rename logs of all the crats or of the whole wiki needs a brain bypass).
::::He has no right to vanish, by virtue of the fact that he is not vanishing. This is (if you'll bear with me) effectively sockpuppetry, of the ilk we see around Qst (I am not inferring that Rambutan is a sock of anyone..). Qst, when he got a stain on his account, would leave it and set up a new one. A few weeks/months later, around the time of the next RfA, a link would appear proclaiming that he "used to be User:X", and this would be used as a supporting statement in an RfA. With a rename like this, there is that little bit less transparency, because the user doesn't proclaim what they were previously known as. If I were to see Porcupine up at RfA now, I might have leaned much further towards suport than I would with him being Rambutan. This is because I, and countless others, have an opinion related to Rambutan, but haven't had any experience with Porcupine.
::::It works the same for normal interactions - not just RfA. There '''needs''' to be this accountability of name-recognition. A user rename can't be used as an excuse to actually '''bypass''' the opinions that others may hold. As far as I know, renames are there for aesthetic reasons, not to give users a "right-to-partially-vanish-but-return-with-a-massive-edit-count-and-no-negative-connotations-associated-with-my-name". Policy needs clarifying to this extent, or user renames, useless wastes of server cycles as they are, should be stopped. ]''']''' 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps if the block log was transferred to the new account, it might help. It might reduce the number of renaming requests from troublesome users. ] 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Porcupine is making no secret that he was Rambutan. 2nd, when his user/talk page were moved, the full history, including all block messages are retained. He is still fully accountable for his past actions. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Nowhere on his user page did it (earlier today) say "I am the user formerly known as Rambutan". Therefore he has no accountability, because when I see suspicious behaviour, I'm not going to go rooting through a user's archives to see if it has happened before (though I may use the block log). I'm going to work on name recognition, which is, in this case, being denied to me. Similarly, if a newish user sees a personal attackmade by a user who has since been renamed and deleted, they have no easy way of associating that action with the new username, as it should be. ]''']''' 22:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Re. comment by NYB above, best one on this thread. Absolutely correct. ] 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, it's a load of bull. The Cool Cat MfD was incorrectly closed, and the issue was only left alone because other users were "tired" of hearing about it, and decided to force the closure. "''Precedent established''" couldn't be more wrong. The fact that this issue has come up again in a completely unrelated matter shows that, 1) the CSD in question was '''not''' made for these types of situations, but for mild, uncontroversial situations, 2) unless there is an issue of privacy or some other reasonable excuse, such redirects are not owned by the user, but rather are being used by the community to keep track of such name changes, and 3) there is clearly some disagreement on these issues, so either side saying "I'm right, drop it" is out of line, and we need to actually address this. -- ] 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I couldn't agree more. ] is perhaps relevant. &mdash;] 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still going to stand by my original position here in declining the speedy deletion and endorse Martinp23's comments above. I don't see this as the same as the Cool Cat situation, the MfD of which NYB pointed to, on two counts. Firstly, you will note that the MfD deleted Cool Cat's ''userpage'' which I have no problem with Rambutan having deleted. However, as you will note, ] is indeed a redirect and has always been one. Secondly, White Cat wanted to remove the record of his former name (regardless of what you think of his reasoning behind this) not to try to distance himself from all talk page comments that he had previously placed, which is in effect what Rambutan is attempting to do here. In fact, White Cat went as far as trying to alter all his signatures to point to his new name (though this may not have been a sensible action). Therefore, I don't believe the two situations are at all comparable. I strongly believe that renaming should not be used as some kind of method to partially hide someone's previous actions, whilst keeping a background of contributions. I have seen no appreciable reason why Rambutan's old talk page can not redirect to his new one for ease of everyone. It seems rather ridiculous in my opinion that people should have to root around rename logs to find the user that a particular comment is attributed to, when a redirect would suffice perfectly well. Many new users will have no clue how to root around said log, and so be at a complete loss as to who made these comments. I don't believe that is what the rename process is for at all. By all means it can be used to change your name to something new that you prefer, and by all means it can be used to help you ] if you are leaving, but what is achieved from this other than causing a great deal of confusion? So that's my position, and I stand by it. ] <small><font color="red">(aka ])</font></small> 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:I stopped reading at the point where he accused a number of established users, myself included, of "abuse". If he can't get his first sentence factually correct, I have little confidence in believing the rest of what Rambutan proclaims. ''']''' 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'd also like to make another point as to why I believe this doesn't have any precedent from the White Cat MfD. In that debate, nigh on all of the people that said that they were happy for the page to be deleted noted that White Cat was not hiding his previous identity at all (his user page clearly stated his previous username). When I look at ] at the moment, I see no mention at all of the fact he used to be Rambutan. In fact, quite the opposite. The statement "''Hi, welcome to the userpage of Porcupine. They're just my favourite animals!! So cute... I've been using Misplaced Pages for a very long time now, but this is the first time I've been tempted to get a user account.''" seems completely misleading to me. ] <small><font color="red">(aka ])</font></small> 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::The contents of Rambutan's are sobering. Though some blocks were reversed, at least two blocks were served out in full, the longer of which was for one week. The comment was ''Repeated disruption, personal attacks, incivility, misuse of Twinkle, etc.'' The contents of ] suggest that the behavioral issues commented on in the block log have not gone away. It was noted above that this editor was booted off of IRC for his behavior while requesting this very deletion. Given the complexity of his current situation, I suggest that his request to delete the links not be granted at this time. ] 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as blocks go, Secretlondon did a 1 second block to draw attention to the old block log, so they aren't hiding from admins. ]] 05:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Anon user is back with more personal attacks ==

User 209.188.56.146 (who is obviously 209.188.62.12, same edit summaries, same info, same attacks) is once again engaging in personal attacks and disruptive behaviour. (see original IP's talk page for warnings given in previous incident) on the ] page. ] 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed. and appear to be quite similar. Cheers, '''( ]] )''' 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor addendum: I do realise that assuming they are one and the same could be seen as failing to AGF, however I think its obvious to the point that not assuming it would be 'putting out your eyes to maintain the NPOV of your nose', so to speak.] 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


:'''Comment''' - I'm not sure that would violate AGF would it? ] <sub>]</sub> 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:: Not a violation of AGF. AGF doesn't require us to stick our heads in the ground. Anyways, I blocked the IP for 24 hours. ] 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet question ==

I just indef blocked ] as a vandal only account. It is also patently obvious that this account is a sockpuppet of ], who was blocked for one week on September 22 for precisely the same vandalism. Given that this individual has not edited from the latter account since that block expired, but instead chose to use a sock, what, if anything, should be done about the main account? ]] 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:Given that it's obvious we're dealing with a purposeful, recidivist vandal I'd indefblock both of them. Be sure to hang the appropriate sockpuppet templates on their pages as a convenience for admins dealing with future occurrences, which unfortunately seem likely in this situation. ] 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== Nationalistic edits ==

] is making nationalistic edits on wikipedia. For evidence of this statement I will give example of his edits in article Vrlika. This is link for his changes ] . For me it is clear that his only changes are deleting of Croats name and changing that with south slavic or not speaking about few facts (old Catholic church, influence of the Frankish Empire, today demography of this "city"). --] 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:This is a routine content dispute not requiring administrator intervention. Please discuss the matter using the article's talk page (or communicate directly with the other editor). ] 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== User:JunKazamaFan ==

{{userlinks|JunKazamaFan}} is currently (as I type this) harassing ] at ], by repeatedly replacing questions/accusations multiple times after TTN removed them. Also has made a personal attack on his user page: ] which has already been removed several times, only to be replaced by either him or ]. -]] 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:This is no excuse whatsoever, but TTN hasn't been making any friends with his 'delete first and to hell with questions' attitude. I'm not involved in any way with this and, as I said, there's no call for harrassment, but I've seen his name come up quite often and not many people have nice things to say about him. ] 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Controversial or not, this is indeed ridiculous. I haven't agreed with some of the things he's done either but I do understand what he's doing. At any rate, this is less about TTN's activities and more about being harrassed and attacked on the user's page. -]] 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Not sure what to think of . ] 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::::My opinion is that it was intended humorously, but I've asked, just to be sure. - ] &#124; ] 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== Jesusforever ==

{{resolved}}
] is engaging in vandalism at ].--] 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:Vandalism reporting is ]-> ] 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::User blocked for vandalism. - ] &#124; ] 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Am I the only one here thinking that he should be nameblocked based on both his name (]) and the article he's been vandalizing? -'']''<small><sup>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</sup></small> 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I dunno, I don't think the name is inherently offensive, although the edits themselves are. Do you think people who aren't so into Jesus would necessarily have a hard time with this name?--] 04:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Actually, this can be seen as ''invok the name of a religious figure in a... provocative way'' and ''promot one religion over another'' (Christianity). -'']''<small><sup>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</sup></small> 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::You (unintentionally, I'm sure) left out an equally relevant part of this policy: "Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged."--] 04:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Given that he's been vandalizing an article on ], I'd say that this is beyond that and into invoking the name of a religious figure in a provocative way. I'll yield on the promotion part, but I still feel he's invoking ] to vandalize articles his particular religious views may disagree with. -'']''<small><sup>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</sup></small> 04:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== User: Scrimmer87 ==

the user
{{userlinks|Scrimmer87}} has apparently created this account for the sole purpose of vandalizing articles. Could some one please summarily give them twenty lashes with a wet noodle, then excommunicate them?

(So I'm bored with the simple requests of please block this guy)

- Jeremy (] 23:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

:No. You have not even tried to ], and even if you had and had got nowhere, you should go to ] and not here. ] 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::After you revert vandalism edits, it is recommended you warn the vandal, the warnings at ] are commonly used. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

: How can you tell that an account is "vandalism-only" when he's made a total of two edits? -- ] 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read them? They were both vandalism, very obvious vandalism. Over the past few months I have observed the trend where newly created accounts that start off vandalizing with their first edit, continue to do so. Usually asking these types of editor (vandals) to stop or posting warnings on their talk pages is ineffective as they don't really care about niceties. Personal observation and opinion, not a commentary on you posts, and the reason for me posting when and what I did. - Jeremy (] 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
:I have observed that many vandal only editors have a contrib history that lasts one day (or, more exactly, one evening) - the next day their hangover is so bad they cannot remember the password they used the night before. It is a waste of time placing an indef block template on their page the day after the event. If they are not caught in the act then forget about them until such time the account is reactivated. ] 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

: Still, you're not going to get a lot of admin support if you don't at least tell people not to vandalize. They were more like childish "wow, I can really do this"-type stuff. There's much nastier vandalism that gets immediate blocks. If he continues after warnings (if it's blatant, use {{tl|Blatantvandal}}), then he'll be blocked. Also, I don't know if you've noticed but he stopped right after the warning. No need for a block. Who knows, it's actually possible for him to become a helpful editor afterwards. We'll see. -- ] (]) 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Warnings DO work, especially if you keep an eye on the vandals. I check back almost every day and escalate as appropriate, and go to ] if needed. When these vandals find out that someone is watching them, many stop their vandalism and make useful contributions. Sometimes it takes a block but you won't get a block if you don't warn first. I've watched a whole lot of editors who vandalized daily but eventually learned better and went two or three weeks without any vandalism and sometimes with useful contributions. If I had not warned them and sometimes requested a block, those vandals likely would have continued vandalizing every day. ] 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] request ==

Any chance of an admin having a word with ] for this little . These sort of things make New Page Patrol so worthwhile and enjoyable. He's so wound up he even thinks I'm American. :) ---- ] 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
: I dunno, an account which has done little more than repeatedly submitted the same article for an unnotable band, then repeatedly (again) drops the f-bomb because he doesn't like the response deserves more than a simple "don't do this again or else" message. Based on this clear evidence, I blocked him for a month; review welcome. (And some people say above that I mollicoddle the troublemakers...) -- ] 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::Oh, strong support. He's been nowhere near civil and he's not even attempting to learn why he article got deleted. Hopefully, he acts a little more contrite when he returns. -- ] (]) 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. These little outbursts don't actually bother me, in truth the mental images they instigate have me chuckling, but I wouldn't want my thick skin allowing them to think they can get away with it. ---- ] 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Someone may want to look at ], it looks like it nom'ed ] for AfD on it's own <font color="green">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:He/she/it has been indef blocked. --] 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:I'm curious as to how it possibly could have seen Philadelphia as an Article For Deletion . . . -]] 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm guessing some experienced vandal created a vandal-only account that impersonates a bot to try to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Its probably not an actual bot... --] ] 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Hmm, that seems to be the case. -]] 00:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Obvious sock ==

{{user5|Joker828}} and {{user5|CptHowdy}} are obvious socks of {{user5|Laughing Joker}} blocked indef two days ago.
All have made the same edit to creationism:,,. ]] 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:I have added suspected sockpuppet tags to the user pages for future reference. Thanks. ]<small>]</small> <small>]</small> 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::No worries. Should I open a suspected sock report, a RFCU? It seems like a pretty clear cut case of abusive use of socks to evade a block, not to mention 3RR. ]] 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I will put in a report at ] unless an admin takes any action here as it is quite obvious that these accounts are sockpuppets. ]<small>]</small> <small>]</small> 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I have added a report at ]. You may add any additional evidence or comments you have to the page. ]<small>]</small> <small>]</small> 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::No I reckon, you pretty much summed it up. Thanks for that. It may still be worth a checkuser to turn up any sleepers if at all possible, but perhaps for now it's best to leave it at that till someone with the buttons has had a look. ]] 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== AIV backlog ==

{{resolved|Backlog cleared.}}
Can we get some lovin' at ]? The backlog is growing pretty large. Thanks! --] 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:Lovin' received and backlog cleared (ew - I didn't realize those two phrases might mean something when put together like that...). Thanks! --] 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user appears to have no understanding of or perhaps respect for image copyrights. He's been warned dozens of times. I propose an indef block, but would like a 2nd opinion. ] 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

: Indefinite might be a bit harsh. I'd support a week (maybe even a month) at first and if he starts again, then indefinite. He did seem to have some good edits a while back but he definitely needs to learn. -- ] (]) 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. I don't think an indefinite block straight away is appropriate. ]<small>]</small> <small>]</small> 01:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I also agree. Personally, I would go with a one to two week block, but that's just me. I think it should be noted that a block is a way to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, and not a punishment. Happy editing, '''( ]] )''' 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved}}

I severely wonder about this admin's sanity. He has just deleted images from my user page without prior notice. This is not the first time he's done this, and there is a history here. I'll accept policy if it's explained, but not if it's done maliciously. Caution is OK, malice and bad faith are not. If this is not the appropriate forum, please advise, and I'll take it to where it belongs. --''']''' (] - ]) 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
: You cannot place non-free use images in userspace. ] <small>]</small> 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:: I severely wonder about MY OWN sanity! ] (]) 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
: Jossi, I don't think Rodhullandemu posted here looking for an explanation as to why the images were deleted (it's already been explained to him). I think he's complaining aboutwhat he sees as a lack of communication/courtesy on the admin's part.--] 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::No, the user seems to think the removal of the images was in retaliation for an odd message he left me. See ]. --] - '']'' - ] 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion can never hurt, as evidenced here. <tt>^_^;;</tt> --] 05:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:Nods, fair use for full copyrighted images doesn't cover userspace. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Probable vandalism related to airline destinations ==

Recently, there has been a large amount of editing to articles listing airline destinations - ] is one, as is ], but there are a lot more (and I'm probably not aware of most of them). Basically, somebody keeps adding claims that the airlines are due to start flying somewhere, but the information is never sourced and I can't find information to support them. The editing is mostly by anonymous IPs, which change frequently. The additions are persistent and often implausible enough that I strongly doubt they're good faith, but I thought I'd see what other people thought. Even if it isn't vandalism, I think something needs to be done to stop these numerous unverified additions (which keep getting readded despite requests for evidence). Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm not too familiar with the process. -- ] 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:I've been aware of the same issue on international airport articles, eg ]. It's probably the same editor each time. Sometimes I've done mass rollbacks (and never had a complaint), but I worry that I'm going to bite some well-meaning editor who has made a genuine but unsourced update of an airline schedule.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">]</font> 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::There's some sort of SPAM/COI stuff going, if one judges by the edit summaries, which use 'we' in the corrections, see for examples. If it weren't for the '...jesus' endings, I'd be more inclined to assume it's a company man doing it, as is, I'm suspecting it's a sarcastic company guy doing it. ] 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Useful new feature ==

The undeletion process now seems to have an option to invert the selection (ie. change all selected edits into unselected and vice-versa). That is useful. Please pass my thanks to the programmer. ] 05:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==

I have warned the editor about . However, I think it needs to be expunged from Misplaced Pages, as it is outright libel about a solid contributer here. I asked ] to do this, but he , and ]. I have warned the offending editor myself, but as I said to Until(1==2), I think it might carry more weight if an admin added his or her voice to the issue. ] 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)



== Sock puppet- 67.94.201.2 ==

] is a user violating the forbidden uses of sock puppets to avoid scrutiny from other editors. He admitted it. ] 06:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:54, 10 January 2025

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

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    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

    Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn

    User:DarwIn, a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is harassing me here after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. Skyshiftertalk 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics (Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is targeting the DYK nomination, again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
    Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. Skyshiftertalk 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally edited the DYK page and put a "disagree", despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. His comment is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, he insisted saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, he reincluded the comment. I asked him to stop harassing me, but he has edited the page again.
    I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. Skyshiftertalk 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons, the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, with an open case for sockpuppetry at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please. Darwin 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have been blocked on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    And here's explicit transphobia. It's her daughter, no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. Skyshiftertalk 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. Skyshiftertalk 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read Thamirys Nunes' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Sure, if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
        Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
        And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. Eduardo G. 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the WP:GENSEX area.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I do understand this Misplaced Pages rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. Darwin 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        @GiantSnowman nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. Darwin 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        it was a collective you. Darwin 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
        None of this is relevant. We follow sources and MOS:GENDERID. There is obviously no Misplaced Pages position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. GiantSnowman 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've continued to post where? Darwin 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Misplaced Pages the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Misplaced Pages community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Misplaced Pages their own stuff 🤷 Darwin 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      Because of edits like this . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Would recommend that Darwin walk away from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Clarification
    • Hello @Nil Einne - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in my country, to the point of eventually configuring a crime here. Obviously Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
    • As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ILGA Portugal, which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Misplaced Pages, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
    • The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Misplaced Pages, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
    • Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Misplaced Pages. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
    • And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. Darwin 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Proposed Community Sanctions

    I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.

    Proposed DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to WP:GENSEX broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Simonm223 OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). Darwin 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, to be clear, I oppose a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ⇒SWATJester 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz
      @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      @DarwIn: you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
    MiasmaEternal☎ 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of MOS:GENDERID may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer WP:AGF. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago , is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. EEng 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP WP:DROPTHESTICK - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of WP:PG, and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
    sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    ... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour there would be no mention of WP:NPA. Misplaced Pages is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Misplaced Pages that it's culture continues to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Let's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Edited to include edit conflict comment. CNC (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I am assuming you haven't spent much time in places WP:FTN where religious belief and persons of faith are not infrequently and quite openly subject to ridicule. Racism is a subject upon which society has happily come to more or less full agreement. Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other. I shall refrain from further comment out of deference to WP:FORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fringe ideas get ridiculed at FTN regardless of whether or not they are religious... That so many fringe views are also religious is more a result of the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual being inherently fringe than any problem with FTN. Religion which is rational and explainable isn't religion any more after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for affirming my point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your point was that "Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other." Right? Like for example the LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory or is that not the side you were thinking of? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    No. I was thinking of people who regularly insult and ridicule religious belief and those who hold to it. Something which based on your comment, does not seem to be a source of concern to you. That said, this discussion is veering deep into WP:FORUM territory and I am going to move on. Have a good day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think I've ever seen any of those people suggest that trans people are demons, or did you mean demonize in a way other than literally saying that the other side is demonic/satan's minions? Becuase that would be highly ironic... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that you are attempting to be deliberately offensive. And for the record, you are succeeding. Good day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    You weren't aware that a cornerstone of the gender controversy was religious conservatives resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other? Because that is well documented in reliable sources. I don't think you're the one who is supposed to be offended here, you're the one saying what appear to be extremely offensive things and are being asked to clarify what you meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I think a significant point here is that while we may tolerate some degree of forumish and offensive comment about gender or race or religions from editors when they are restricted to largely abstract comment or even when they reference other editors, it's far more of a problem when the editors make offensive accusations about living persons especially when these are completely unrelated to any discussion about how to cover something (noting that the editor continued to make the comment even after they had noted how the English wikipedia treats issues). So for example, if someone says a specific religious figure is delusion or lying in relation to how we treat their testimony that might barely be acceptable. When someone just comes out and says it repeatedly for no reason, that's far more of a problem. Especially if the figure is someone barely notable and not notable (as was the case here for one of the individuals each). Nil Einne (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comment This is definitely not the ideal place to discuss the subject since the whole problem originated with pt.wiki, but since the editor came here asking for help (for the right reasons or not), I will draw attention to the case of the admin accused of transphobia. This is not the first time that DarwIn has been singled out due to his comments on the subject (he has already given several examples of this here), but there is an official pt.wiki community on Telegram where the editor has already been criticized for making such comments. There, they were also celebrating Skyshifter's ban (DarwIn commented something like "as a man he was 100%, after transitioning he became unbearable" to refer to her). As much as they try not to link the group to the project, to use this chat you need to associate your Misplaced Pages credentials, so I am concerned that pt.wiki admins could be seen spreading speeches against minorities in an official space of the project, since Misplaced Pages is the target of attacks for investing in equity and diversity. In addition to this comment, the admin was also extremely rude and crude towards a Misplaced Pages research group that discusses gender, sexuality and race.
    Again, this is not the ideal place to comment on these issues, but I suggest that the case be submitted to Wikimedia if any intervention or something more incisive is necessary. The local community can accuse me of anything for writing these words, but I am concerned about the escalation of editorial harassment within that space.
    PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. Jardel (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors (block discussion in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. Eduardo G. 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe meatpuppetry. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. Eduardo G. 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you send cordial greetings from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. Jardel (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. Eduardo G. 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. Jardel (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Jardel You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. Eduardo G. 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its members to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. Jardel (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. Eduardo G. 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    As a ptwiki user that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Misplaced Pages project a sewage (here)/in her UP, thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the block discussion (in portuguese). The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it.

    This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone.

    I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my portuguese talk page (direct url). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. Eduardo G. 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community "worms, scoundrels, trash and deniers". And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user already tried to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, went to Meta-Wiki in an attempt to intervene in the Misplaced Pages domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. InvictumAlways (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. Eduardo G. 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Misplaced Pages" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Misplaced Pages, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. Jardel (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    InvictumAlways - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? jellyfish ✉ 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Jardel The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, as you said yourself previously. Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: . And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Supporting both IBAN and TBAN. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
    concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Misplaced Pages, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Children cannot consent, their parents can. (CC) Tbhotch 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ask yourself whether Misplaced Pages would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support TBAN, no comment on IBAN. This is blatant POV harassment. (CC) Tbhotch 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Misplaced Pages follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- Patar knight - /contributions 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose any sanctions I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate WP:OR on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support TBAN, indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this WP:NOTHERE type editing, whether it is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or simply WP:BLUDGEONING discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. CNC (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose Skyshifter, if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to deëscelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. JayCubby 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite (here) to boot. Relm (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY.

    Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am.

    Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Misplaced Pages’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Misplaced Pages.

    I support the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Misplaced Pages community.

    I oppose with the IP-ban because if anything this SHOULD’VE ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing.

    Reader of Information (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents.
    NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Misplaced Pages calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent.
    Cheers,
    Reader of Information (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. TarnishedPath 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "further troll me with this nonsense warning". TarnishedPath 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support both. To make sure I haven't lost my goddamn mind, I read this discussion twice. I personally believe Darwin is in the wrong here. His behavior on enwiki violates both GENSEX and BLP sanctions (), and he doubled down when he had the chance to defend himself (Special:Diff/1267644460 and comments above). Even if we play devil's advocate and assume Darwin's claims about Sky being a troll/vandal and sockmaster (which is a heavy accusation to make) on ptwiki are true, her work on enwiki has shown that she's changed for the better. This is coming from a person who has interacted with Sky a couple of times (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive2, Talk:Quannnic/GA1); she is an amazing editor on here. For the sake of everyone involved and to avoid another mess like this, the sanctions above should be enforced. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 08:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Skyshifter taking matters from another Misplaced Pages to seek revenge.

    100% affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Misplaced Pages which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this WP:BOOMERANGs on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Misplaced Pages ANI. Please do not reopen this section. Liz 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    On the 29th of December, User:Skyshifter started an AN/I based on a claim that User:DarwIn, a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination here. AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate.

    She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Misplaced Pages, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn.

    But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log.

    This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, after calling the whole platform a sewage (here and in her UP), casting aspersions over other users and using ducks and meatpuppets to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it here, with all the proofs). The block discussion taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever.

    Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was personal and for revenge. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under pt:WP:NDD, here called WP:ASPERSIONS I think, and disruptive editing/WP:POINT, and in the AN/I above she's commiting WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment.

    Eduardo G. 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Eduardo Gottert: You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    '@Nil Einne The evidences are above. I said if you need any further evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. Eduardo G. 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. Eduardo G. 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. Eduardo G. 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. Eduardo G. 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is time for a WP:BOOMERANG. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I added more evidence and context. Eduardo G. 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your statement doesn't even make sense. Eduardo G. 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    We can add WP:CIR to the reasons you are blocked then. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Am I? And where am I in violation of WP:CIR? Eduardo G. 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. Silverseren 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. Eduardo G. 06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I've read many of the posts on the Portuguese wiki, and it is pretty clear that the Skyshifter's complaint above is a deliberate expansion of drama from there. The Portugese wiki is not Uganda, people do not get banned there for being Trans, and former admins don't get banned without causing a lot of disruption. It is clear these two users really strongly dislike each other and need to stop interacting in any way.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
      People obviously doesn't get banned for being trans. She was sysop there, commited some errors, but stayed there even after 5 months of being on estrogen. And the community knew it. What caused her block there was calling the project a sewage and then outbreaking and attacking other users. I suggest they get a two-way IBAN, at least, not the one-way as proposed on the other AN/I. Eduardo G. 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would add that unless I'm missing something, the block discussion on the Portugese Misplaced Pages seems to have been started about 30 minutes before the ANI thread . It has no contributions by DarwIn . It is theoretically possible I guess it somehow factored into the motivation of Skyshifter opening the ANI thread, but this seems extremely unlikely. There's a good chance Skyshifter wasn't even aware of it when opening the thread. In other words, there's no reason to think Skyshifter was even aware they were likely going to be permanently blocked from pt at the time of opening the thread although they did say they weren't going to return. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it here. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see here. Eduardo G. 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • This is very blatantly a tit-for-tat. As mentioned above there is the distinct smell of fishiness about it, and as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log - yes, the editor who has three FAs on en.wiki "came to this project" to do this. Suggest this be promptly closed as I hear a WP:BOOMERANG inbound. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
      I am not saying she isn't an avid used of English wiki. I just stated that she took ptwiki matters here for revenge and self-fullfillment. Eduardo G. 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
      If you aren't asking for any sanctions against Skyshifter, then why did you open this sub-section, just to sling some mud at her? Give it a rest already, you're just creating more drama than is necessary. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think that the background of this dispute is very relevant. Obviously, neither Skyshifter or Darwin should face any repercussions here for behaviour on pt.wiki, but it isn't possible to understand what is happening here without discussing what happened there. For me, having read what happened over there is the main reason I wouldn't yet TBAN Darwin, and would call for a two-way rather than one way interaction ban.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility and ABF in contentious topics

    Hob Gadling's uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it is problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:

    Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883

    WP:NPA

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324

    Profanity

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966

    Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877

    Unicivil

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441

    Contact on user page attempted

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795

    Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as some diffs from the past few days are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Would I be the person to provide you with that further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's for one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
    Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution. ]) Thank you for your time and input.
    Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: trying to report other editors in bad faith. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Lardlegwarmers: Jay brought something to my attention with a recent version of your user page. It looks like there is large language model (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason! I'm confused. This specific revision also assumes bad faith about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism. I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, since you are here at ANI now, what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT, in your own words. BarntToust 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @Thebiguglyalien, I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a formal warning or a trout slap is what needs to happen to Hob. BarntToust 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @IntrepidContributor, I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. please look at this diff on Lardle's user page for context, in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. BarntToust 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! *curtsy* Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    ...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". GiantSnowman 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' here? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word bullshit, which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, this supposed "disparag of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills" seems pretty temperate. And so on. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

    I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at this user page discussion where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - Palpable (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hob Gadling failing to yield to WP:BLPRESTORE, apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Propose serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Recuse Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. SmolBrane (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to BarntToust above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Extended discussion

    Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. BarntToust 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things bullshit and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is WP:SPADE. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 fringe theory + pseudoscience debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. BarntToust 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a FA, that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "fuckin' wanker" because they botched a page move. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. BarntToust 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    When Michael De Santa shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells Trevor Philips that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". BarntToust 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. BarntToust 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. BarntToust 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    So, to recap, Houston: It's not what it is said that causes problems, it's how it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to call a spade a spade. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions bullshit is not the right thing to do. BarntToust 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Eh, you can say "That's WP:FRNG and WP:PSCI and does not constitute due weight as the subject is discussed in reliable sources". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their GA and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work isn't shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience.
    This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what the definition of "is" is. BarntToust 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing WP:FRINGE misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as here, and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as here. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. Silverseren 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) bullshit to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that that was what led Lardlewarmers to try and their target on their talk page, a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward WP:BOOMERANG situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "turn over a new leaf" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to tell people to stop before it's too late and stop treating aggressive or uncivil behavior as a "lesser" crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a chronic and ongoing habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Silver_seren-20241231185800-Slatersteven-20241230182700) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. now WP:DROPTHESTICK. TiggerJay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person. However, that is not what I read in that reply. Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. TiggerJay (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a lesser offense. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ] The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.(]) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should not be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from WP:FTNCIVIL or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - Palpable (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am in the diffs.
    I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - Palpable (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Extended discussion
    How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See WP:POTKETTLE, also please see WP:SOCK if you logged out just to make problematic edits here.... TiggerJay (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @166.205.97.61: Okay let me say it another way...
    • never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed.
    • since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted.
    • in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds.
    • when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history.
    But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @Palpable has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . TiggerJay (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a serious allegation, yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? However, if you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry. (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) TiggerJay (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the last 5 thousand edits to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits.
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. TiggerJay (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. TiggerJay (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. TiggerJay (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please read WP:SATISFY. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. TiggerJay (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    1. Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400

    Send to AE?

    Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to WP:AE since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
    That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - Palpable (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - Palpable (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    FYI WP:AE is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
    It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - Palpable (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why wp:Being right is not enough is policy.
    Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. SmolBrane (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I second to motion to bring this to WP:AE. BarntToust 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Edit warring to prevent an RFC

    @Axad12 has removed an RFC tag from Talk:Breyers#Request for comment on propylene glycol now twice within an hour.

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list.

    We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content problem or a Misplaced Pages:Walled garden that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm not saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in some cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute.

    I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. See you tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC.
    I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith.
    The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Axad12, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Axad12, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. WhatamIdoing, a {{trout}} for WP:GRENADEing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template.
    The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. Axad12 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that exceptionally serious abuse? Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request.
    I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request).
    As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content.
    Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. Axad12 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the WP:UPPERCASE. See, e.g., An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy.
    I also direct your attention to the item that says Gaming the system may include...Filibustering the consensus-building process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not highly misleading.
    I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. Axad12 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved.
    I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. Axad12 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when WP:COIN can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one fad diet book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer.
    But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my not-inconsiderable experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself.
    It isn't really relevant here but actually I didn't expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor tag-teamed with Graywalls, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. Both users refused collaboration on the Breyers article content at DRN.

    Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue.

    Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (article link) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative.

    Proposal: Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and here, as another example, Axad12 and Graywalls should be A-banned from the Breyers article and its talk page.

    Strike as withdrawn for Axad12 ABAN to concur with Cullen328 and the oppose decisions below.
    Graywalls is a separate case remaining undecided here. Over the 2024 article and talk page history at Breyers, this user was the main purveyor of disinformation, and has not acknowledged his talk page hostility and errors of judgment, despite abundant presentation of facts, sources, explanations, and challenges for information below. Graywalls should commit to abstain from editing the Breyers article for a given period, as Axad has done. Zefr (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Zefr:, your domineering and territoriality to that article is a big part of escalation and if anyone, it should be you who should refrain from it. Blatantly disregarding consensus and going so far as saying Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus. as done in here which goes to show you feel you're above consensus. You weren't persuaded until you were corrected by two administrors Aoidh and Philknight on the matter on the belief you're entitled to insert certain things against consensus. You also were blocked for the fifth time for edit warring in that article, with previous ones being at different articles with dispute with other editors, which shows your lack of respect for community decision making. Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, your concept of what was a false consensus has been dismissed by the RfC result, so you should move on from this bitterness and distortion of truth. In reply to Aoidh and Philknight at the Breyers talk page, I stated in my next comment, "Yes, a key word unintentionally omitted in my response concerning statements and sources was "verifiable". As there are few watchers/editors of the Breyers article (62 as of today, probably many from Unilever who do not edit), I provided statements of facts verified by reliable sources, whereas this simple practice appears to not be in your editing toolkit.
    The obligation remaining with you in this discussion is to respond to Cullen's 2-paragraph summary of your behavior below in the section, The actual content that led to this dispute. Let's have your response to that, and your pledge to abstain from editing the Breyers article - you did say on the talk page on 29 Nov that you would "delegate the actual editing to someone else." I think your defiance to respond to challenges in this discussion section affirms my recommendation that you are ABANNED from the Breyers article and IBANNED from attacking me because you are unable to face the facts. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was a no commitment suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, WP:OWN approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    You had already been notified of the problem you caused at the Breyers article in this talk edit on 5 Jan. Now, you are engaged in conspicuous deflection to avoid answering the Cullen328 paragraphs and the several requests for you to explain and own up to your disruptive behavior and non-collaboration. Regarding OWN, there are few editors at Breyers. I countered your attempts to slander the article with the "antifreeze" term and bogus diet book references by applying verifiable facts and sources.
    OWN:"Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. This too does not equal ownership, provided it does not marginalise the valid opinions of others and is adequately justified." If you had offered valid content and sources, I would have collaborated.
    I'm sure editors have seen enough of your personal grievances expressed here. Please stop. I'm not returning unless an exception occurs. Zefr (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Oppose: I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard.
      I have not ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them.
      Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024.
      I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make.
      Also, the idea that I made a hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect.
      I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Misplaced Pages over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time.
      Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at WP:COIN, but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. Axad12 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. here, because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see User_talk:DMacks#Breyers_disruptive_editing for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling Special:Diff/1261441062. @Aoidh: also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see Special:Diff/1257252695 Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus.
      My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Misplaced Pages articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the new consensus.
      My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Misplaced Pages. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC.
      I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      • The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question?
      Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by adding another garbage source yesterday - see comments about this book in the RfC): what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.
      Have you read the sources in this talk page topic?
      Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting this source), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 here, after tag-teaming with Axad12 to do your bidding on 17 Nov. That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article.
      The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of WP:RFC: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and NutmegCoffeeTea, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post here where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) initiate DRN for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) providing a science- and law-based talk page topic on 19 Dec, which appears to be willfully ignored by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by DMacks on 27 Dec, resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to revert constructive edits and tag-team with Graywalls.
      Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of WP:NOTHERE for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. Zefr (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve.
      Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus.
      You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. Axad12 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of months to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Misplaced Pages article, repeatedly reinstating WP:PROFRINGE content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as WP:DUE for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE or in pursuit of COI purification. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus.
      I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was at that time no consensus in favour of exclusion.
      It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it.
      My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed should be) reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Axad12, you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See WP:BRDREVERT for an explanation of why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Rhododendrites:, the antifreeze matter is WP:DEADHORSE since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin Daniel Case who determined it to be content dispute Special:Diff/1260192461. Zefr inferring alleging I was "uncooperative" not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate. I'll see if @Robert McClenon: would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC))
      For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below.
      "Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months.
      It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: "A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."
      Here's your chance to tell everyone:
      Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    A Non-Mediator's Statement

    I am not entirely sure why User:Graywalls has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute".

    I closed the DRN thread, Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Breyers, on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. User:Zefr had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word antifreeze and of the mention of propylene glycol. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of antifreeze what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a one-against-many dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether DRN is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was.

    I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that User:Axad12 edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about conflict of interest. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Robert McClenon:, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here?
    I said you were non-collaborative, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: "refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."
    You were notified about the DRN on your talk page on 3 Dec, and you posted a general notice about it on the Breyers talk page on 6 Dec, so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, including many on the Breyers talk page.
    You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic comment on 12 Dec.
    I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, I notified the Breyers talk page of the DRN closure. cc: Robert McClenon. Zefr (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Zefr:, As been said to you by others, participation is not mandatory. Other editors are not required to and you shouldn't reasonably expect them to prioritize their real life schedule or their Misplaced Pages time on dispute that you runs on your own schedule to your DRN you started around your own schedule on your own terms. I have initially waited to give others time to comment as their time allows. I'm also not particularly fond of your berating, incivil, bad faith assuming comments directed at myself, as well as a few other editors and it's exhausting discussing with you, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to give your matters priority in my Misplaced Pages time. Graywalls (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    A Possibly Requested Detail

    Okay. If the question is specifically whether User:Graywalls was uncooperative at DRN, then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between User:Zefr and User:Axad12, and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Okay. User:Zefr is making a slightly different statement, that User:Graywalls did not collaborate at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it Special:Diff/1262763079. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    The actual content that led to this dispute

    Two month ago, Breyers included this shockingly bad content: As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop. The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a Generally recognized as safe food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love! written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently Graywalls and Axad12 dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have no right whatsover to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Misplaced Pages, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations per se, but I am an advocate for corporations being treated neutrally like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, Graywalls and Axad12 were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, Axad12 tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by Graywalls. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Cullen,
    As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not concoct that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material.
    I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not dug in heels or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged in anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end.
    Similarly I do not hold the view that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me very evil indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me.
    I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour.
    Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC over and over and over again. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated that From my standpoint wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I obviously dislike Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to be evil?
    To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus.
    I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see anti-corporate diatribes or evidence that I obviously dislike Breyers or Unilever.
    Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion.
    Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist.
    I have never stated or implied that a corporation does not deserve neutrality and nor do I hold such a view.
    I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds.
    I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been determined over the last two months to maintain various versions of biased non-neutral content then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. You are also obligated to actually look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's a very fair question.
    The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for).
    User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there.
    I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard.
    However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I entirely accept that.
    For clarity, when I said my understanding of policy at the time I meant my understanding of policy at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits.
    What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material.
    Virtually all of my time on Misplaced Pages is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive.
    So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded.
    I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. Axad12 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article.
    I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question.
    I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards.
    Hopefully this clarifies... Axad12 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've been expecting something to happen around User:Axad12, whom I ran into several months ago during a dispute at COIN. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be clerking the noticeboard, making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex: ...the existence of COI seems quite clear... 1, ...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest... 2, As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago. 3) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether User:Hawkeye7 had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an almost invisible contribution on the Signpost). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Misplaced Pages for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given.
    If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent.
    That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Misplaced Pages over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally.
    All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. Axad12 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes.
    I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity.
    I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. Axad12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS, but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Crosstraining? BusterD (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from before the current rewrites started to the current version makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream., which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version so much. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list - Following similar practices by several of their competitors, Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, and Isaidnoway: would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks, and a Diddly Question

    I would like to thank User:Cullen328 for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for User:Axad12. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an exceptionally serious abuse of the conflict of interest process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the conflict of interest content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post .
    My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. Axad12 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I find your characterization of events inaccurate. You stated "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here "
    But this was not a resubmission. The original COI request was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of "the recent content addition related to propylene glycol". Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content.
    We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the Food and Drink Wikiproject to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. Axad12 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between User:Axad12, User:Graywalls, and administrator User:DMacks. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and User:Zefr on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of conflict of interest, but they show no direct evidence of conflict of interest editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of exceptionally serious abuse that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The paid editor is User:Inkian Jason who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason began this discussion where they pinged User:Zefr about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had previously requested the deletion of a sentence about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). Photos of Japan (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers

    (Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from Breyers and Talk:Breyers for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite article ban, an I-ban with Zefr, and a topic ban on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards.
      As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on pain of an indefinite site ban. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. EducatedRedneck (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted.
      Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions.
      No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. Axad12 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN

    Clerking at COIN seems to have given User:Axad12 the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from WP:COIN for two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that everyone whom don't know is probably a paid editor. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. Axad12 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I would prefer it if Axad12's voluntary commitment was to stay away from WP:COIN rather than the company article in particular. It is very unhealthy, both for Misplaced Pages and for the particular user, for anything like a third of the edits on any noticeboard to be from any one user. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support this is a good idea, and not vindictive. It will do Axad12 some good to get away from the COIN for awhile, and get out there and roam around Misplaced Pages and see where else they can contribute constructively. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think a formal ban is unnecessary. Axad has done a remarkably good job of articulating a positive response to this incident, and it's to his credit that he has reacted so constructively under such pressure.
      I also think it's good for everyone to try something different on occasion. I think it's easier to walk away for a bit if you're sure that others will step up to fill your place. So with such proposals (not just this one), I'd love to see people saying not only that they support giving someone a break, but also that they'll try to step up to help out in that page/process/noticeboard for the length of a ban. It could be as little as checking in once a week or answering the easy questions. Who is willing to actually be supportive in practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      People will fill the space. WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensible. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's only for two months, it's a good thing to get away and get a breath of fresh air, and yes, his response has been positive, but even he admits in the Breyer debacle, he was relying on other editor's opinions in evaluating the disputed content, so getting away from the COIN desk for a couple of months, and getting some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia will be beneficial, if and when, he returns to COIN. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don’t want to derail the voting process here, but a couple of points in relation to COIN…
      (Apologies for the length of this post but I feel the contents are relevant.)
      1) It has been observed elsewhere that “COIN has no teeth” (forgive me for the absence of a diff but I think it's a commonly acknowledged idea). I've discussed that issue at some length with Star Mississippi and they've acknowledged that there is (in their opinion) insufficient admin oversight at COIN and that too many threads have historically gone unresolved without action being taken against promo-only accounts (etc).
      Star Mississippi has encouraged me to refer such cases to admins directly to ask them to intervene. I’ve been doing so over recent months and this has significantly improved positive resolutions on COIN threads.
      If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. Thus, while I acknowledge Whatamidoing’s earlier point about cross-training etc, and the points made by other users, there is an underlying unresolved issue re: admin oversight at COIN, which might also be resolved via some kind of rota or by a greater number of admins looking in from time to time.
      I’ve not consciously been clerking, and I certainly don’t aspire to be “the co-ordinator of COIN”, but there is something of a vacuum there. Consequently I’ve often posted along the lines of “Maybe refer this to RPPI?”, “Is there a notability issue here?”, etc. etc. in response to threads that have been opened.
      I absolutely accept 100% that, in terms of experience, I’m probably not the best person to be doing that – but I have the time to do it and I have the inclination, and in the absence of anybody else serving that role I’ve been happy to do it. But, as I say, really this is an underlying unresolved issue of others not having the time or inclination rather than an issue of me going out of my way to dominate. What I'd really like is if there were others sharing that task.
      2) Also I'm not really sure that the extent to which I perform that sort of role has any real link to me making assumptions about whether COI users have good or bad faith motivations. On the latter distinction I think it's fair to say that I'm usually (but admittedly not always) correct. There have also been occasions when others have been asking for action to be taken and I've been the voice who said "no, I think this is a good faith user who just needs some guidance on policy". I hope that I'm normally speaking fair in that regard.
      Most of the accounts who are taken to COIN are recent accounts who wrongly believe that Misplaced Pages is an extension of their social media. Most accounts who fall into that category are advised along those lines and they comply with policy or, sometimes, they just go away. Then there are the repeat customers who are often clearly operating in bad faith and where firmer action needs to be taken. I'm conscious of that distinction, which seems to me to be the single most important point when dealing with COIN cases. I've not been adopting some kind of hardline one-size-fits-all approach or characterising all COI activity as bad per se. However, more admin oversight at COIN would certainly be appreciated, if only so that there were a wider range of voices.
      Thus, in an ideal world I think I would continue to be allowed to operate at COIN, but as one of several regular contributors.
      Apologies for the length of this post but hopefully this is a useful and relevant contribution. Please feel free to hat this post if it is considered wildly off-topic. Axad12 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Isaidnoway, all I can say is that if Misplaced Pages is looking for people with the time and motivation to dedicate to the project, and who are amenable to taking instruction, then here I am.
      If I’ve been felt to be overly keen to contribute in a particular area then fair enough. I’m just not sure that a formal ban is the way to go about resolving that. Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim - If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. I just don't believe that to be true, because as Phil Bridger points out - WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensable. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I really don't wish to argue, you've expressed your view and that's fine. However, the point of my long post above wasn't that "I am critical to COIN". The post was simply intended to highlight the fact that there are very few regular contributors at COIN and to express a hope that a wider range of contributors might get involved (following on from earlier related comments by Whatamidoing). That would be healthy all round, regardless of my situation.
      Also, when I've seen similar situations arise in the past, good faith (but over-active) users seem to usually be given the opportunity to voluntarily take steps to allay any community concerns, rather than being handed a formal ban. I'd just be grateful for a similar opportunity. Axad12 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Apologies for the delay. I cannot provide a diff either as I can't recall where we had the conversation but acknowledging that what @Axad12 attributed to me is correct. There are simple blocks that are sometimes needed, but there aren't as many eyes on COIN to action them. I believe I've found merit to any Axad reported directly to me and if there were any I didn't take action, it was due to bandwidth as my on wiki time has been somewhat limited over the last six months. As for the merit of this report, I am not able to read through it to assess the issue so it would not be fair of me to weigh in on any element thereof. Star Mississippi 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment I have read through this long, entire discussion. I'd just like to point out to Axad12 that, to me, it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be. I think it would be a mistake for you to think you only made mistakes regarding this one article and instead reconsider your approach to the entire COI area. Sometimes "the consensus" is not correct and can violate higher principles like NPOV and V.
    I'll just mention that the COI area has caused us to lose some invaluable editors, just superb and masterful editors who were on their way to becoming administrators. They devoted incredible amounts of time to this project. But their interest in rooting out COI and pursuing UPE caused them to completely lose perspective and think that they were a one-man/woman army and they took irresponsible shortcuts that led them to either leave the project voluntarily or be indefinitely blocked. It's like they fell down a rabbit hole where they began to think that the rules didn't apply to them because they had a "higher calling" of getting rid of COI. This lack of perspective caused us to lose some amazing editors, unfortunately, but ultimately they were damaging the project.
    You seem like an enthusiastic editor and I'd rather not see the same thing happen to you so I recommend you cut back on your time "clerking" COIN and just make this task one of a variety of areas you edit in instead of your primary activity. Liz 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Liz, thank you for your comments. I welcome your perspective and I'm not unaware of the dangers that you highlight.
    I think this is now day 5 of what has been a rather gruelling examination where I’ve co-operated to the very best of my ability. Most of the material under discussion has related to a series of regrettable misunderstandings where I’ve openly acknowledged my errors and would now like to move on.
    Therefore I’d be grateful if, following a period of reflection, I be given the latitude to continue my activities as I think best, taking on board all the very helpful advice that I’ve received from multiple users. At this moment in time I'm not sure exactly what that will look like going forwards, but it will involve a very significant (perhaps complete) reduction in my concentration on COI issues and much more time spent on improving articles in non-COI areas where I've previously contributed productively (e.g. detailed articles on specific chess openings).
    If I subsequently fall short of community expectations then by all means bring me back here with a view to imposing extreme sanctions. I do not think that that will end up being necessary.
    I have only the best of intentions but I must admit that I'm finding this prolonged process psychologically wearing. I therefore wondered if we might bring matters to a swift conclusion.
    I am genuinely very grateful for the thoughts of all who have contributed above.
    Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose. Sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. At times Axad12 can get too aggressive, and removing the RfC template was one of that. Other issues were also raised but unless these issues continues, formal sanctions are unlikely necessary. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose I haven't gone through the entire saga on the Breyers page, but for a while I was active in COI edit requests at the same time Axad12 was, and noticed their conistently very combatitive/aggressive approach towards any editor with a declared or suspected COI. I mentioned this to them and they said they had already stepped back from answering COI edit requests because of this, which I though at the time (and still do) showed a genuinely impressive amount of self-awareness. I rather burned out on the edit requests and came back a few months later to see the queue vastly decreased thanks in part ot Axad12's efforts, but also what seemed to me like very little improvement, if any, to the way they approach COI editors. I would regret to see Axad12 banned from this topic area, but I would like to see them approach it with somewhat more kindness. I would (regretfully) support sanctions if this kind of behaviour continued, but there's no need to jump to that now. Rusalkii (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just a note to acknowledge the essential truth of Rusalkii's description above of my activities. There have, however, also been examples where I've shown considerable kindness and patience to COI editors and assisted them in re-formulating requests in a way that conforms with the relevant policies.
    I've always seen activities at WP:COIN and activities dealing with COI edit requests as two rather different things (with the former involving primarily undeclared COI, and the latter involving declared COI). With the benefit of hindsight I accept that my exposure to the former probably coloured my approach to the latter in an unhelpful way and that being heavily active in both spheres simultaneously was not a good idea.
    I would happily undertake never to deal with a COI edit request ever again and I have no particular desire to continue my activities at COIN either. The extent to which it was unhealthy to be operating in both spheres areas is thus now effectively a moot point but I acknowledge that it was a factor in the matters under discussion here. Axad12 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Complaint against User:GiantSnowman

    There is no merit to the report against GiantSnowman. There is a rough consensus against, or at the very least no consensus for action toward Footballnerd2007 based on the mentorship proposal put forth and accepted and no further action is needed here. Star Mississippi 02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    This complaint has been withdrawn.See #Response from Footballnerd2007 below.

    Good Morning,

    I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against User:GiantSnowman for repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's policies on personal attacks (WP:NPA) and casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS) during a recent discussion.

    Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Misplaced Pages's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to:

    Casting aspersions without evidence:

    • GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence.
    • For instance, accusations of using ChatGPT to generate responses without concrete proof.
    • Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle of Assume Good Faith.

    Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:

    • The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks:
    • Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times.
    • Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis.

    Violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ENCOURAGE:

    • Misplaced Pages encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment.

    As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue.

    I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violating WP:NPA or WP:ASPERSIONS. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior.

    If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Misplaced Pages contributors.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    The discussion I raised was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Footballnerd2007, now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes.
    In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion. GiantSnowman 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pinging other editors who were involved in that ANI discussion or have posted concerns/advice on this user's talk page - @Liz, Voorts, Folly Mox, Tiggerjay, Extraordinary Writ, Tarlby, The Bushranger, Thebiguglyalien, and Cyberdog958: - think that is everyone, apologies if not. GiantSnowman 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your speedy response. Now let other admins add their point of view. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is a spectacularly bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      WP:BOOMERANG is worth reviewing. It may already be too late for you to withdraw your complaint, but it's probably worth an attempt. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of using ChatGPT to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, this is mere conjecture. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, it's called people have eyes. Using LLMs this way is highly disrespectful and frankly disruptive. Boomerang block for WP:NOTHERE seems appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    (Responding to the ping, invovled) My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago. However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior by very peculiar / suspicious WP:Wikilawyering I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example of WP:NOTHERE and failure to follow WP:PG despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    +1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Misplaced Pages, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. Ravenswing 12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    CBAN proposal

    • I propose a community ban for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a significant number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive WP:NOTHERE time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about WP:BOOMERANG and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Support, obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. GiantSnowman 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. GiantSnowman 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        I'll respond to this in depth later today. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Support - on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has wiped their talk page by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to Liz's advice. They also edited other people's comments to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded when I pointed this out. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ChatGPT" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Update - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        (another (edit conflict) To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help.
        My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged.
        As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... GiantSnowman 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Support CBAN. Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. Folly Mox (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.
        FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. GiantSnowman 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. GiantSnowman 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked specifically about Chat-GPT, however multiple times you were specifically asked about the broad term of LLM. Your current claim of, never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. TiggerJay (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
        Soft-struck prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. TiggerJay (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
        information Note: for Folly Mox, just to inform you there is a #MENTOR proposal that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. CNC (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
        (responding to ping) Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of candid owning up to misbehaviour combined with acceptance of mentorship by CommunityNotesContributor (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).@Footballnerd2007: I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Misplaced Pages is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. Folly Mox (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support as this behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my guess is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also User:GiantSnowman's numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about WP:WASTEOFTIME as we have do so, it might be worth considering the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. CNC (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Nfitz - that is a nonsense, editors can and do edit my user drafts whenever they want. My issue was with them moving one into mainspace. GiantSnowman 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose: CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. Ravenswing 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose - A mentor has been provided. EF 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support mentorship offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. TiggerJay (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    MENTOR proposal

    Mentorship commitments to uphold by Footballnerd2007 for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: CommunityNotesContributor.

    1. Abide by all policies and guidelines and listen to advise given to you by other editors.
    2. No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor.
    3. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it.
    4. No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness.
    5. Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor.
    6. Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism.

    This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. CNC (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. CNC (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    No bad - let me rephrase if that helps. I am not opposed to mentoring in place of the current CBAN proposal. GiantSnowman 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion

    • Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editor could be a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally there should be relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as a WP:MENTOR, if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles. CNC (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. CNC (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per WP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. Reader of Information (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's definitely OK with me. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. CNC (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Should I ping? Reader of Information (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      I gladly and humbly accept your mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Just to be clear, this would be a WP:LASTCHANCE offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose. CNC (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Completely not related but wanting to chime in.
    I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @GiantSnowman handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @Footballnerd2007, it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer. Reader of Information (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Furthermore, no one is perfect. Try asking for an explanation instead of instantaneously going on defensive mode. That will always help. Be humble. Reader of Information (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have taken up the mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Misplaced Pages. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed, @Reader of Information maybe hold off on pings for now. CNC (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Alright, sounds good. Reader of Information (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Per #Response from Footballnerd2007 I think pings are appropriate now. CNC (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm now home and will start drafting after lunch. I'll send it you before posting it here. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed? isaacl (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed Involuntary mentorship. CNC (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your clarifying edit. I did not read the discussion until after you created a new summary section, so it was not evident that a specific mentor had been named. isaacl (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Response from Footballnerd2007

    Good Afternoon all,

    Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.

    I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity.

    To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading.

    The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.

    I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise.

    I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Misplaced Pages is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.

    Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thank you for this. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. Folly Mox (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nfitz, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) EEng 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was a bit short, EEng, but this. Nfitz (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.) and it came back "99% human". EEng 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well geez now I'm curious what "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning.
    The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before.

    English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned.

    I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend.

    I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @GiantSnowman clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed.
    I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours.

    Cheers,
    Reader of Information (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are looking for WP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Misplaced Pages policy on the use of AI. GiantSnowman 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was about to begin a reply with "Last time we tried this", but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the word­smithing. Folly Mox (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior.
    @Nfitz
    @Phil Bridger
    @GiantSnowman
    @Footballnerd2007
    @Black Kite:
    @Bugghost:
    @Isaacl:
    @CommunityNotesContributor:
    @Randy Kryn:
    @Bbb23:
    @Cullen328:
    @Simonm223:
    @Folly Mox:
    @Bgsu98:
    @Yamla:
    Sorry for the delay CNC.
    Cheers,
    Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please don't send mass ping notifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Misplaced Pages expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. isaacl (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since we're here (at the most visible venue): m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT (2023) concludes inconclusively. Special:Permalink/1265594360 § Copyright of LLM output (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar... With that said, I do want to strongly admonish FBN, because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simply That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that they didn't use chat GPT even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that they now realise was evasive -- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement of to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. TiggerJay (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MAB Teahouse talk

    I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I protected Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK, I've fixed that. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    In relation to "MAB" issues, is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of when the notoriously difficult Queen Mab speech was pretty much hit out of park in 1997's Romeo + Juliet? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's just you. Liz 06:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Kosem Sultan - warring edit

    Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this.

    I was editing page of Kösem Sultan and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667

    Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.

    As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date)

    I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.

    Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --Sobek2000 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will point out that consort is generally considered synonymous with the word spouse. Elizabeth I's mother, for example was officially the "queen consort" of the united kingdom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    IP persistently removing sourced content.

    133.209.194.43 has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles Enjo kōsai, Uniform fetishism, Burusera, JK business where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have WP:EDITWARred on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are WP:NOTHERE. In this edit they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Courtesy ping, @Cassiopeia and KylieTastic also have tried to warn this IP user. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. Liz 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples: this edit summary is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults. pretty much the same thing here. I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Edit warring on US politicians around the Gaza genocide

    The Lord of Misrule is blocked for edit warring and there is no merit to their retaliatory report. If disruption returns when the block expires, escalating sanctions can be considered. Star Mississippi 04:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I'm getting caught up into an edit war with The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on Nancy Mace, Antony Blinken, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Any so-called "commentary" has been removed, ie "complicity" and now just facts related to the subject and topic remain, yet here we are. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will note, per the International Criminal Court, any material support for War Crimes, like funding or vetos allowing war crimes to continue in the UN Security Council, are themselves War Crimes https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unless you can find a RS to back that up, that would be OR. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just reverted TLoM's most recent edit, has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements. when the source says vetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N. The three ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violate WP:NPOV. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    If more scholarly works will be forthcoming, then the sections can be expanded when those works forthcome. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Muboshgu, they were provided with a CTOP notice for ARBPIA by @ScottishFinnishRadish on the 17/02/2024. Should this perhaps be best addressed at WP:AE? TarnishedPath 21:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given the thread below I think we should discuss a topic-ban here and now, rather than going thru AE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Perhaps. I was going to initially bring this to 3RRNB but decided to bring it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Removal of legitimately sourced information concerning ongoing Genocide in Gaza

    Retaliatory. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the Gaza Genocide. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    What subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Phil Bridger, see the directly above discussion. TarnishedPath 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tendentious editor

    Single purpose account NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting again . They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. Previous ANI. Vacosea (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at Talk:Amdo, why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try WP:DRN? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. Liz 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    They would probably respond only after being reverted again by me or the other editor. Since their one and only response, they've left the discussion hanging again while actively editing the article. Vacosea (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Adillia

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

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

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

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

    User:D.18th

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov

    All of the named parties have been indefinitely blocked with checkuser blocks. Liz 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Azar Altman (talk · contribs) was previously reported at ANI for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs) appeared. One of their edits at Uzbekistan is an emblem before the name of Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of MOS:FLAG. They did this three more times (, , ). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice (, ), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a sock puppet. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    I opened a sockpuppet investigation a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. Mellk (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pinging @Drmies who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Galaxybeing, yes, that's how that goes. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was Stop discriminating by violating Misplaced Pages rules. when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. TiggerJay (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles

    Request an immediate and extended range block for 49.145.5.109 (talk · contribs), a certified sock of LTA Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15 from editing 2025 in the Philippines and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. Borgenland (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    It seems like this should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15, not at ANI. That's where the checkusers are at although they are generally reluctant to connect an IP account with a blocked sockpuppet. Liz 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is already confirmed in the SPI. However, as it is an IP account that can't be indeffed, I'd had to check my calendar too often to see when their existing block expires. 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    SeanM1997

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only

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

    User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despite WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:V. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for example these edits on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. And here where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline.

    Combined with stories about being a professional in this field, giving him a WP:COI, I think something has to be done. The Banner talk 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Reading SeanM1997's talk page is a depressing saga. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content for years, despite being warned repeatedly. The editor can be unblocked if they promise to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    It should be noted that SeanM1997 has in the past posted a tweet to support something, then used a news story referencing his tweet as a source to insert into an article. Despite many years and many many conversations, they don't/won't understand the concept of independent reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deegeejay333 and Eurabia

    Much of the activity of the infrequently active user Deegeejay333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be attempts to whitewash anything to do with the Eurabia conspiracy theory, attempting to present it as "fact", despite the fact that scholarly sources have consistently defined it as a conspiracy theory (see , ). I think this makes them WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notifed their talkpage . Despite their long periods of inactivity, their most recent activity is today . Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The rest of their edits on unrelated topics seem unobjectionable. I think page blocks would get the job done in preventing further disruption (I can't get around to doing that right now, but that's my two cents). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Really? You see nothing wrong with these edits? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. It does kind of look like this editor is WP:NOTHERE except to do battle with the terrible forces of Misplaced Pages leftism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did a quick look; I didn't look at all of their edits. I agree that edit is also problematic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    White-washing Bat Yeor was also the very first edit they made at Misplaced Pages as well as their most recent. This is an ongoing issue. see here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Wigglebuy579579

    1. they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text;
    2. they ignored all warnings onto their talk page;
    3. they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them.

    Miminity and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Est. 2021, can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. Liz 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: Examples include:
    1. Draft:Pfütsana, Draft:Pfütsana Religion and Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2;
    2. Draft:Toda Religion and Draft:Toda Religion/2;
    3. Draft:Indigenous Religions of India and Draft:Indigenous religions of India;
    4. Draft:Sekrenyi Festival;
    among others. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: This editor left a message on my talkpage and again it is clearly written by AI. Here's the link Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are any of the references in Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2 real or are they all hallucinations? I'm having trouble finding them on web searches. They're also suspiciously old even though there is more recent relevant literature. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The Misplaced Pages:Large language models essay recommends G3 for articles for which text-source integrity is completely lacking. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Rsjaffe: Using BookFinder.com, Citation #1, #3 (might be a dupref of 1) does exist but has different author, Citation #2 does exist and is correct. #4 is dupref of #2. A quoted google search and a google scholar search about #5, 8, 9, 11 (The journals does not seem to even exist) yields no result. No result for 6, 7, 9, 10 (Nagaland State Press does not seems to even exist) 12 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would like to hear from @Wigglebuy579579, but, if the results of the reference searches on the other drafts are like this, then all those drafts should be deleted as unverifiable. LLM output can look very correct while hiding significant falsehoods, and it will be impossible to sort fact from fiction in those articles if they haven't been validated word-for-word with real sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Click all the link on the Draft:Toda Religion/2, all of them are {{failed verification}}. Either the page does not exist or the website itself does not exist. The JSTOR sources leads to a completely unrelated article. I think by the looks of it, this draft is safe to delete
    @Wigglebuy579579: care to explain? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Rsjaffe: more ref-checking at Draft:Pfütsana: as Miminity observes, The Angami Nagas: With Some Notes on Neighbouring Tribes exists (although with the BrE spelling of the title) and I accessed it at archive.org. It does not mention pfütsana anywhere in its 570 pages. The closest we get is pfuchatsuma, which is a clan mentioned in a list of sub-clans of the Anagmi. The draft says The term Pfütsana is derived from the Angami language, where "Pfü" translates to "life" or "spirit," which is contrary to what The Angami Nagas says – pfü is a suffix functioning sort of similarly to a pronoun (and I think I know how the LLM hallucinated the meaning "spirit" but this is getting too long already). I looked at a couple of the sources for Draft:Indigenous religions of India as well, and I haven't been able to find a single instance where the source verifies the claims in the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for checking. Those are now deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking

    Not a problem; request rejected

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


    This user is persistently MOS:OVERLINKing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example:

    • (unexplained citation removal as well)

    I have also recently warned the user on their talk page regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior:

    This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in July 2024, where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, continued the same behavior. With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. Magitroopa (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Overlinking still continuing on despite this ANI (for example), and even with an administrator suggesting they not ignore this ANI, continues on with their edits/ignoring this ANI. The user is not appearing to want to WP:COMMUNICATE whatsoever, and some of their communication over issues in the past does not bode well as well ().
    They are adding many uses of Template:Baseball year, despite the usage instructions saying that the template should not be used in prose text. I really am not sure what more there is to do here, as any attempts at communicating with the user does virtually nothing. Magitroopa (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: Apologies for the ping, but could there please be some assistance here?... As BX stated above, despite their only communication thus far since this ANI (being a simple, "ok"), they have still continued overlinking- now overlinking even more since BX's comment above: . I'm really not sure what more there is that can be done here apart from a block, as it appears this is just going to continue on, no matter what anyone says here or on their talk page. Magitroopa (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Several of the diffs you give are positive changes, and your inappropriate reverts have caused articles to be underlinked. Leave BittersweetParadox alone. If you insist that he be sanctioned for the negative edits, you'll get some as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Repeated pov pushing

    This is a content dispute and ANI is not the venue to resolve those. Hellenic Rebel, you've had multiple editors tell you that you are not correct. Please take the time to understand why. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:Hellenic Rebel , despite the disagreements, continues to try to impose his personal opinion, for which he cannot cite any source that justifies him. Clearly original research.

    diff1

    diff2

    diff3

    diff5

    previous reporting of the issue

    See also, talk with User:Rambling Rambler 77.49.204.122 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Replying since I've been tagged. I do think this is a behavioural issue rather than a content one. User has been repeatedly warned on their talk page by several users about edits to the article in question but has belligerently refused to engage in constructive discussion about said edits.
    User was clearly warned about continuing this in the closure message of the last ANI discussion not to resume the edits but the response on the article's talk page was notably dismissive of said warning.
    Quite honestly I think this is a case of WP:IDHT. The user in question has just plead that they have special knowledge we don't and has steadfastly refused to demonstrate in reliable sources the contents of their edits. Despite being informed of how consensus works they have resorted to counting votes and even in that case just dismissing the views of those against him for contrived reasons. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    My friends, anonymous user and @Rambling Rambler, and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the page history. The administrator locked the page in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?
    P.S.: Rambling Rambler, please stop bombing links to wikipedia policies and then trying to interpret them and "fit" them to the issue. This practice resembles clickbait, you are simply trying to show that you are knowledgeable about politics and appear superior, and this is annoying. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Rambling Rambler an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not going to reopen the content aspect of this here. I have made you aware, repeatedly, of our polices when it comes to including claims. You need to provide reliable sources and the burden is on those wanting to include challenged statements to meet consensus to include them. You have now just admitted there is no consensus yet you felt entitled to reintroduce challenged material.
    This is precisely a "I don't have to" issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also tagging @Voorts as they probably have a view on this given their previous action. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Rambling Rambler I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. WP:IDHT:
    Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".
    You can see the bold parts. It's obvious from those, that this policy does not refer to cases where four user with two different opinions participated. It refers to cases where one or a minority of users refuses to accept the community's decision because they believe their opinion is superior. In our discussion, my version never rejected from the community, it was rejected only by you and the anonymous user. In this case, either you believe that the majority or the community in general is you and the anonymous user, or you are simply trying to propagate your position. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You were linked WP:ONUS during the discussion and clearly acknowledged it.
    So you are aware of it, which bluntly states:
    The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
    In your previous reply you have admitted that there isn't consensus.
    You have broken policy and are just once again stubbornly refusing to adhere to it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Rambling Rambler There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Misplaced Pages policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This wall of text is the exact problem at hand here. You won't follow our site's policies but instead are just making up your own as to why breaking policy is now fine. The "discussion" was barely dormant and as you admit there was no consensus on including the material you demand be included. Ergo, per policy it can't be included.
    Frankly you are incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. I think the fact that you've been blocked repeatedly both here and at our Greek equivalent for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring demonstrates this very well. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Rambling Rambler The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is ad-hominem again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is not ad hominem to bring up your history of blocks for edit warring and disruption when the topic of discussion is your conduct.
    The policy, which I quoted for your benefit, literally says the onus is on the person who wants to include the disputed content which is you. You want this claim to be on the article and myself and others have disputed it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Rambling Rambler there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Rambling Rambler yes it is a dispute, but if there is not a consensus that your dispute is valid, the version that remains is the original one, that is also supported by source. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    There has never been a specific version of the article. A few hours after adding the uncited 5 MPs, the edit was undone. It is also worth noting that the original contributor of the addition about mps, Quinnnnnby never engaged in an edit war or challenged our disagreements, as you did. 77.49.204.122 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @Quinnnnnby. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Hellenic Rebel:, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you must include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HandThatFeeds this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page instead of just ramming into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HandThatFeeds there was a discussion on the page. The source states that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are in the new party. And the users, after their first argument that it should have a parliamentary group was shot down (as it was obvious that this policy is not followed in any party), they moved on to a logic that the source should say verbatim "5 MPs stand" for the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HandThatFeeds I have lost hours of my life to "discussing" this at this point. They're entirely either refusing or simply incapable of understanding that because they have sources for Claim A that doesn't mean they can put a similar but still different Claim B on the article. They however insist they can because unlike us they're "Hellenic" and therefore know that Claim A = Claim B while refusing to accept this is WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from User:KMaster888

    (non-admin closure) While KMaster888's editing history (the original discussion) wasn't inherently bad in itself, their conduct after being questioned about it was bad, violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SUMMARYNO, and WP:NPA See , , , , , , , , , and their comments on this thread. Indeffed by Cullen328, and TPA revoked after , another personal attack. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:KMaster888 appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window.

    I attempted to ask about the policies around this at User_talk:Novem_Linguae and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't):

    diff diff diff

    As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM (diff not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound).

    Following the quite hot thread at User:Novem Linguae's page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited every single article that I had edited, in reverse order (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time.

    The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with questionable, misrepresented, or edits for the sake of editing at a rate far faster than any editor could address.

    This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Misplaced Pages so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. KMaster888 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been
    2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? KMaster888 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've edited over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Misplaced Pages (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. KMaster888 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. KMaster888 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. KMaster888 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unless you're doing regex with your eyes, clearly you're using assistance. And the fact you're (still!) doing something that fixes the same type of typo almost as fast as I can click "Random Article" indicates you're doing more than just regex. You're finding these articles somehow. closhund/talk/ 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am doing an "insource" search using regex. KMaster888 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I learned about insource searches recently and was able to find spam by the boatload immediately. It is a great tool. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah . I wasn't aware one could do that. I retract. closhund/talk/ 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. KMaster888 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @KMaster888 I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. Tarlby 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that KMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Misplaced Pages user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. KMaster888 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll just ask you straight up.Do you feel any remorse for this statement? remove asshole Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? Tarlby 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    And again: @The Corvette ZR1 @Tarlby stop clogging up ANI with your comments. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 22:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    , , , , , Tarlby 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    And this: improve asinine comment and this: I wipe my ass with comments like yours. Cheers! MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    That was because Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. KMaster888 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Great answer. Tarlby 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? KMaster888 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, WP:CIVIL and WP:SUMMARYNO tell me the contrary. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Regardless of their editing or otherwise, KMaster888's comments in edit summaries and here indicate they're WP:OBNOXIOUS in a way that indicates an inability to participate in a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The product of Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is a body of written and visual work. It is first and foremost about the product, not the community. In this sense, it is indeed a collaborative encyclopedia, but it should not be considered an encyclopedic collaboation. KMaster888 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wikilawyering over what "collaboration" is doesn't help when you're in blatant violation of the fourth of the five pillars. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not Wikilawyering. I would also encourage you to come to a discussion on my talk page over small potatoes instead of at ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is wikilawyering. And this is at ANI, so the discussion is taking place at ANI. Answering the concerns about your conduct that were raised here on here is how you resolve the issue, not "don't talk about it on ANI", as the latter gives the impression of trying to sweep them under the rug - especially since your edit summaries MrOllie linked above make it clear this is very much not "small potatoes". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here's some more diffs of KMaster888 being uncivil. From my user talk page. . I think these are forgivable if in isolation since KMaster888 may be frustrated by false accusations of being a bot, but if it's a pattern, it may need addressing.
    The WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:BADGERING of my user talk page and of this ANI is also a behavioral problem that, if a pattern, may also need addressing. It is disrespectful to interlocutor's time and brainpower to dominate discussions by replying to everything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unless there are specific discussion rules, I should not be penalized for responding to comments that involve me. KMaster888 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The problem isn't you responding to those comments. It's about HOW you responded to those comments. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are, in fact, specific discussion rules - WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Propose indefinite block

    Blocked and TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    They demonstrate a severe inability to interact in the collegiate manner this project requires. The edit summaries are not merely uncivil, but dismissive: ignoring colleagues is worse than just being rude to them. Their behaviour on Novem Linguae's talk pretty much sums it up.Whether they are actually a bot or running a scruipt doesn't really matter: WP:BOTLIKE is pretty cl;ear trhat "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". So 10,000 edits or not, the edits smack of being bot/script-generated, and may also be WP:STALKING.I also don't set any store by the excuse for "wiping ass with comments", "improve asinine comment" and "remove asshole" being that Misplaced Pages's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. WMF servers going down (or not) do not cause aggressive edit summaries, and we are not fools. The fact that the same attitude pervades through this discussion—"everyone, get off my back"—suggests that this is default behaviour rather than a one off. SerialNumber54129 23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're saying "they" like it's more than one person. I am one editor. KMaster888 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not in that sense. We use they/them pronouns as to not assume an editor's gender. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support - While I wouldn’t have had the same suspicions about their editing as Warren, their extremely uncivil reactions to it and further questions here, along with the further attention they’ve drawn on to prior recent behaviour has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful interaction with any other editor who disagrees with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe revoke TPA too? This is beyond the pale. closhund/talk/ 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wow… Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have indefinitely blocked KMaster888 for personal attacks and harassment, and disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    After their latest personal attack, I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Good block It'd take a hand-written miracle from God for them to change their ways anytime soon.
    Tarlby 03:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Investigating the hounding claim

    Above, there is a claim that KMaster888 is WP:HOUNDING Warrenmck by editing 100 pages that Warrenmck has edited. The editor interaction analyzer suggests that there's only an overlap of 45 pages (42 if you subtract out my user talk, KMaster888's user talk, and ANI). Warrenmck, can you please be very specific about exactly which pages overlap? Maybe give a link to KMaster888's contribs and timestamps of where this range of hounding edits begins and ends? This is a serious claim and probably actionable if enough evidence is provided. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Note that there are >100 edits across the pages, since they tended to edit in a spree. The number of pages you found seems accurate, even accounting for the possibility of a few outside of this exchange. I’m not sure what exactly I can do to show the relationship to my edit history beyond I guess go pull said histories and compare them? But I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority of the interactions you see were from that narrow window after your talk page.
    Sorry for the drama, by the way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of the multiple edits to a page thing. No worries about the drama. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please don't apologise for this. Nobody should have to put up with such behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:FMSky

    WP:BOOMERANG. PolitcalPoint blocked for a month for BLP violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    User:FMSky has been persistently engaging in disruptive editing by constantly reverting (see , , and ) in bad faith over the course of more than a week in order to prevent the insertion of sourced material that states that Tulsi Gabbard had "touted working for her father’s anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against same-sex marriage in Hawaii and promoted controversial conversion therapy", which is a discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality." backed by two reliable sources cited (see and ) in support of the specific wording inserted into the article.

    For my part, I have consistently maintained a strict self-imposed policy of 0RR, never even once reverting User:FMSky, listening to his concerns and taking his concerns seriously, tirelessly working to address his concerns with two reliable sources cited (see and ) in support of the exact same wording that User:FMSky originally objected to (see ), then, when reverted again by User:FMSky, I patiently continued to assume good faith and attempted to engage with him directly on his talk page not once but twice (see and ), which he pointedly refused to respond to on both occasions, then when reverted yet again by User:FMSky (see ), explained to him the entire series of events (see ), which User:FMSky replied to by blatantly lying that I had not addressed his concerns (see ), which, when I pointed that out and showed him the reliable sources that I cited in order to address his concerns (see ), User:FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia." (see ).

    I'm completely exasperated and exhausted at this point. If even using the exact same wording as the reliable sources cited in support of the specific wording inserted into the article is still unacceptable to User:FMSky, then I'm not sure what I'm even supposed to do to satisfy him. User:FMSky is clearly engaging in disruptive editing in bad faith and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    @PoliticalPoint, your source for "discredited, harmful, and pseudoscientific practice that falsely purports to "cure" homosexuality" doesn't mention Gabbard or Hawaii or her father's organization. Have you read WP:SYNTH? Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    More the case that trying to assert conversion therapy as discredited is a COATRACK, unless there was appropriate sourced coverage that associated Gabbatd with supporting a discredited theory. We can leave the blue link on conversion therapy carry the worry of explaining the issues with it, it doesn't belong on a BLP. — Masem (t) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The wording does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" as the latter part of the wording, as supported by the second reliable source (see ), explains what conversion therapy is for the benefit of readers. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are you kidding me lmao. I didn't even notice that. That makes it even worse --FMSky (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Only commenting on this particular angle: @Schazjmd: when dealing with fringe ideas, it is sometimes the case that sources provide weight connecting the subject to a fringe idea but which do not themselves adequately explain the fringe theory. If it's due weight to talk about something like conversation therapy (or creation science, links between vaccines and autism, etc.), we run afoul of WP:FRINGE if we don't provide proper context. These cases are rare, however, and this isn't a judgment about anything in the rest of this thread. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The user was previously blocked and was only unblocked after agreeing to 0RR on BLPs. This was violated in the 3 reverts here and the concerns weren't adressed: 1, 2, 3. See also the previous discussion on PoliticalPoint's talk page that I initiated -- FMSky (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    FMSky replied by saying verbatim "How is that even relevant? Just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean this exact wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I love how you, in bad faith, left out the most relevant part that I added: "And the statements weren't even attributed to someone" --FMSky (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    As already pointed out to you at my talk page (see ), those were edits, not reverts, over the course of more than week, and as also already pointed out to you at my talk page (see and ) your concerns with the wording were in fact addressed with two reliable sources cited in support with the exact same wording that you objected to, verbatim. You are blatantly lying again, as the statement is, in fact, attributed to Gabbard herself as it is she herself who "touted working for her father's anti-gay organization", which is backed by the first reliable source (see ). --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, these were reverts, as the wording I originally objected to was restored numerous times --FMSky (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Those were edits over the course of over a week. The wording that you originally objected to was restored only with two reliable sources that use the exact same wording verbatim. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you used the same wording as the sources without an attributed quote you've committed a copyright violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Restoring removed content even without using the undo feature is a revert. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    See above, Gabbard isn't even mentioned in one of the sources, which is insane and negates the need for any further discussion. This content should not be on her page & is probably the definition of a BLP violation. --FMSky (talk)

    Besides removing obvious SYNTH, I notice that FMSky reworked unnecessary overquoting; looks like good editing on FMSky's part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Another thing I just noticed is that the article is special-protected: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." No such discussion was initiated on Gabbard's talk page --FMSky (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I have blocked PoliticalPoint for a month for BLP violations, an escalation of their prior two-week edit warring block. I had originally intended to just p-block them from Gabbard but I am not convinced they understand the issue and that the problematic editing wouldn't just move to another page. Should they eventually request an unblock I think serious discussion sould happen w/r/t a a topic ban on BLPs or American Politics. Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE

    Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.
    I noticed an editor named Bgsu98 who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by WP:BEFORE before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)
    I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.

    I should note that Bgsu98 doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated Kamil Białas (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination)). One can really wonder why he does this.

    P.S. More information is here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Figure Skating#Notability guidelines. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It seems that no one acted on this change until Bgsu98 came.

    P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.

    P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while Bgsu98 has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (source). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @Moscow Connection or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @Bgsu98 who is nominating based on community consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. Liz 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    "However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules."
    — They don't meet WP:NSKATE, but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet WP:GNG. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require WP:GNG, so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.
    (I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, WP:V has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like WP:NSKATE without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. TarnishedPath 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Star Mississippi and Liz: A WP:DRV, a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "Lilia Biktagirova" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova)? Cause I was searching for sources for Alexandra Ievleva and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.
    Here: "Тренер Трусовой, почти партнерша Жубера, резонансная Иевлева: кто соревновался с Туктамышевой на ее 1-м ЧР (2008)".
    And again, it was Bgsu98 who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting User:Hydronium Hydroxide: "There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale." --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    After looking at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova, I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have also found an interview with Lilia Biktagirova: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates WP:BEFORE, otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no WP:BEFORE research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".
    Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping BeanieFan11 and Doczilla. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Moscow Connection claims to be polite, yet wrote the following: "random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom". Pinging Shrug02 who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.
    He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hanna Harrell: "By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"
    I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. Moscow Connection seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @Moscow Connection to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @Liz I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @Moscow Connection is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @Bgsu98 and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while Bgsu98 directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)
      Also, a note to admins: Can it be that Bgsu98 finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".
      And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Moscow Connection I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @Bgsu98 pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @Bgsu98, making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @HyperAccelerated's comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. Shrug02 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      According to this, "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Moscow Connection
      Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people."
      No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion.
      If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep.
      I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon.
      All the best to everyone involved. Shrug02 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Moscow Connection wrote the following in his original complaint: ”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.” I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met WP:GNG, the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...

    (2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.

    (3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's exactly the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.

    (4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. Ravenswing 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    “Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria (What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. —
    Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a WP: BOOMERANG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ValarianB (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often really poor; many are simply Non-notable figure skater, which doesn't say much of anything. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      And @Moscow Connection, you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide proper sourcing for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created seventeen years ago -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. Ravenswing 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – and many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While you may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("Alexandra Ievleva" and "Viktoria Vasilieva".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.
      But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.
      Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)
      By the way, I have tried searching on what was once Yandex News, but the news search doesn't work anymore. (Here's an example.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. HyperAccelerated (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Arbitrary break

    ...editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". One such view published almost five years ago contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC)

    RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. Liz 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".
    A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".
    Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per WP:NSPORT", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports) revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    (nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) Ravenswing 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Ravenswing:, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.
    And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.
    I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please be careful with the WP:ASPERSIONS, Moscow Connection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue.
    Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions: Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started. JTtheOG (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    And here is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines after SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Another example of ignoring SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman: @Black Kite: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. GiantSnowman 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here and here is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised here and here, although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior. JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    And here are More and more and more and more and more and more and more examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes here, close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? GiantSnowman 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. GiantSnowman 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you go to 10 May 2024 here, you get exactly 50 nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per AFDstats. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. GiantSnowman 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that not a single one of them provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?

    So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. Ravenswing 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, especially these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. However, I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like this one I found today, tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. Toadspike 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @Toadspike and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @Bgsu98 without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @Moscow Connection basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @Bgsu98. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @Bgsu98 probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @Moscow Connection is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @Bgsu98 we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking Star Mississippi to undelete the "Lilia Biktagirova" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of Kvng, noticed: No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.
        You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I've decided to save "Alexandra Ievleva" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Ievleva) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. Shrug02 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your input and insight. As I told BeanieFan11 earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.
        I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      • 20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      While I do not know whether @Bgsu98 should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. @Toadspike. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. Star Mississippi 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, here and here. Zaathras (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      "As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that JTtheOG is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • As a fellow WP:FIGURE participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that @Bgsu98: convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion is warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend everyone take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, WP:BEFORE states the following: Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. So, I'd ask @Moscow Connection: to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: a normal Google search, or a Google Books search, or a Google News search, or a Google News archive search? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for expanding WP:BEFORE to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly recommend more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but required? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are significantly based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely WP:VPP). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does not require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion at the appropriate place if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (1, 2, 3) - dates back to May 2022. In fact, last year I issued a warning on their talk page (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with WP:NOTBURO. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. @Bgsu98: It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are multiple examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that User:Bgsu98 already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. Liz 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care why they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've provided some 20 examples as well. JTtheOG (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Potential company editing?

    Closing by OP request. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    The user Bouchra Filali uploaded this image to the page Djellaba. They share a name with a fashion company and seem to have replaced the original image on the article with a product from their company (see revision 1268097124). I reverted their edit and warned them, but due to my concern, and following advice from an administrator on the wikimedia community discord, I am reporting this here as well. I have also asked for advice on what to do with the commons file, and will be filing any necessary reports there. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    They have only made one edit on this project which was adding an image to an article, it looks like they uploaded the image on the Commons. Have you tried talking about your issues with them on their Commons user talk page, Cmrc23? This doesn't seem like it's a problem for the English Misplaced Pages. We don't even know if they'll be back to make a second edit. Liz 06:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I asked the commons folks on discord and it seems that, since they uploaded an image that they own, all is well. I have to admit that I was a little hasty here, I've never used this noticeboard before. Feel free to close this if you feel there is nothing more to discuss, I'll monitor the user in question. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 06:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Smm380 and logged out editing

    I have warned this editor twice about logged out editing because they are evidently editing the article history of Ukraine both logged in and as an IP. This makes tracking their edits more difficult since they have made hundreds altogether in recent months (and they are only focused on this specific article). The IP edits seem to come from 195.238.112.0/20 (at least most of them) and they are often made shortly before/after Smm380 decides to log back in. See for example this edit by Smm380 and this edit by the IP a few minutes later regarding the same section. This is now especially a problem because they are deciding to make reverts as an IP.

    In general, they have not listened to prior warnings. I have given them multiple warnings about adding unsourced text, but they are still continuing to add unsourced text without including citations first. But they have not responded to any of my warnings or explained why they are still doing this. Mellk (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I noticed the concerns raised regarding edits made both from my account and an IP address, and I’d like to clarify that this was neither intentional nor malicious. I simply forgot to log into my account while making those edits.
    I apologize if this caused any confusion. My sole intention was to improve content related to Ukrainian history, a topic I am deeply passionate about.
    Regarding the delayed response to your messages, I sincerely apologize. I hadn’t noticed the notifications until recently, as I was unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages’s messaging system works. Now that I understand it better, I’ll ensure to respond more promptly in the future.
    I truly appreciate the valuable work you do to maintain the quality and reliability of Misplaced Pages. I will make sure to contribute responsibly and stay logged in during my future edits. Smm380 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Another not here IP

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk · contribs) is altering another users posts to insert political commentary ] as well as making PA's, with a clear statement they do not intend to stop ], and edit warring over it as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Now past 3rr reinsertion of their alteration of another users post. So its now vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    As well as this tit for tat report ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    IP blocked for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Heritage Foundation planning to doxx editors

    Closing to prevent a split discussion. The most central discussion about this is currently held at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. —Alalch E. 22:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    See current discussion on Heritage Foundation talkpage. Various sources are beginning to report on this, see , . It seems they plan to “identify and target Misplaced Pages editors abusing their position by analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting,” and “engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure,” and “push specific topics to expose more identity-related details.” An IP user on the discussion page says "they intend to add malicious links (sources) that will set cookies, grab your IP, and get tracking going for your device. This has likely already started. Be careful, there are lots of ways to hide where a link goes." Photos of Japan (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think there's a far more productive discussion going on at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    A friendly reminder: It's always a good time to review the strength and age of account passwords, plus consider two-factor verification. The world is constantly changing... BusterD (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Isn't doxing a federal/punishable offense in ten states (more or less), including DC? If they grab the information of or out a minor, that can easily be taken on as a form of harassment and won't end well. EF 17:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    No doubt the Trump adminstration will make pursuing such cases a high priority. EEng 22:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm unsure why this isn't a WMF issue, due to potential legal and safeguarding issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The WMF has been made aware. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Truffle457

    Editor blocked indefinitely. Liz 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Truffle457 (talk · contribs)

    "Murad I the ruler of the Ottoman Turks seems to have been a blasphemous person"

    "Bayezid I is not worthy of any praise, in fact this character unworthy to be known as a "thunderbolt".

    "Suleiman I" is unworthy to be known for any magnificence, this character imposed the "Shari'a Law" upon 3 or more continents.

    I don't even know what to call this. This user has few edits but most are like this. Beshogur (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    This is a new user with only a single level I notice on their page. I've issued a level II caution for using talk pages as a forum and added a welcome template. If this persists, stronger measures may be needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Beshogur, I'd advise talking with an editor, through words, not templates, before filing a complaint at ANI. That's a general recommendation unless there is active vandalism going on. Liz 22:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    His comments are disturbing tbh. Beshogur (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The user's response to Ad Orientem's warning demonstrates that they have no insight into their misconduct and are WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
     Indeffed per WP:CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, by having a conversation, you discerned that CIR applied. Some communication, I think, is better than silence at least when you are trying to make sense of an unclear situation. Liz 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    YZ357980, second complaint

    I have again reverted YZ357980's insertion of an image of dubious copyright; change of Somali Armed Forces native-name to an incorrect format; and violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG at Somali Armed Forces - see ] which had another editor fix the incorrect file format. I believe this editor is WP:NOTHERE and not willing to communicate and I would request administrator attention to this matter. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    For the record, that image has been on Commons since 2015 and was made by a different user. That said, YZ357980 continues to make these borderline disruptive edits and has never posted on an article talk page or a user talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace until communication improves, as it is not optional. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    1. Thankyou!! Much appreciated!!
    2. Yes I was aware of the status of those images, but I repeatedly told YZ357980 that it was of borderline copyright and WP had to follow US copyright law. I have managed to get the equivalent Iraqi ones deleted; I will go after the Somali ones to try to get them deleted.
    3. Someone (an anon IP) posted on his talkapage as if replying, see . Please feel free to reconsider your actions should you wish, but I continue to believe YZ357980 is NOTHERE. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given this which is clearly YZ not logged in, the block has been changed to full indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    My reverted edit at List of Famicom Disk System games

    At worst, this deserves a {{minnow}}. This is, at heart, a content dispute, and Talk:List of Famicom Disk System games is the place to discuss it. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hi

    I added {{clear}} to the top of table of List of Famicom Disk System games to make the table use the whole horizontal space. I did it according to other list of video games articles and reception section of some video games articles to help the table list look better or not reception table to conflict with references (double column references more specifically).

    However @NakhlaMan: reverted my edit and with a rude language called it "UGLIER" and calls it waste of too much space.

    With my edit, it adds just a small space to the top of list heading but the table could be read easier and uses the whole available space. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think this is the right place for this. Yes, the user could have been much nicer on their opinion, but this is too much of an escalation, too fast. I would advise commenting on their talk page, or on the page talk page. Cheers, Heart 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
    Yes, their edit summary was mildly rude, but this is not actionable, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit War in Korean clans of foreign origin

    Ger2024 blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User: Ger2024

    Ger2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.

    In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).

    Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.

    This report belongs at WP:ANEW. Heart 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
    Who posted this complaint, they didn't leave a signature which, to me, shows a lack of experience. They also didn't leave any diffs so it's impossible to judge if there were indeed reverts. And as HeartGlow states, this is more suitable for ANEW which focuses on edit-warring. Liz 08:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unclear if genuine question or rhetorical, but in case it's the former, it seems to be User:Sunnyediting99. (They have over 1000 edits and have been editing since 2022, but it appears they may be used to using the Reply tool, which might explain why they didn't think to ~~~~ since replying in that manner does that automatically? I think? ...Not trying to excuse it so much as I'm trying to understand it.) - Purplewowies (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry about that, I was a bit sleep deprived when I made, I'll go to WP:ANEW.
    And yea im way too used to the reply tool, i think i make these posts like once perhaps every few months so i got a bit rusty on this. Thanks! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Subtle vandalism by 8.40.247.4

    Excellent report results in a two-year block. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Since early 2020, User:8.40.247.4 has consistently and subtly made edits that:

    • minimize achievements and contributions of black people in American society
    • obscure or soften wording about right-wing and far-right leanings of conservative figures
    • promote fringe, racist, or pseudo-scientific theories

    The IP generally attempts to disguise the edits by lying about changes made in the edit summary. Here is a list of problem edits in chronological order:

    Date Page Issue
    Mar 4, 2020 McComb, Mississippi (diff)
    • Removal of section about black people gaining the right to vote with the Voting Rights Act.
    May 31, 2020 John Derbyshire (diff)
    • Removes phrase describing VDARE, a white nationalist organization, as white nationalist. Summary: "Fixed a typo".
    Jul 21, 2020 Richard Hayne (diff)
    • "Reorganised wording" means removing criticism.
    • "made favourable LGBT commentary more vivid" (what?) replaces the subject's stance on homosexuality with a vague and unsourced statement about Urban Outfitters and the Hayne family.
    Jul 28, 2020 Louie Gohmert (diff)
    • Softens "opposes LGBT rights" to "generally opposes LGBT rights legislation". Removes the words "defamatory" from section on Gohmert's false allegations. Removes whole section on Gohmert's opposition to making lynching a hate crime.
    • Summary: "Grammatical issues."
    Sep 24, 2020 Back-to-Africa movement (diff)
    • Omits the context of Christians accepting slavery when the slaves were Muslim to make it sound like religious Americans had always been morally opposed
    Jan 14, 2021 Virginia Dare (diff)
    • Removes description of VDARE as a group associated with white supremacy and white nationalism.
    Apr 28, 2021 Bret Stephens (diff)
    • Hides his climate change denial, so the sentence now basically reads "Bret Stephens has an opinion on climate change". Uses summary "Removed redundancy" (it wasn't redundant).
    June 25, 2021 John Gabriel Stedman (diff)
    • Removes sentence on pro-slavery leanings (admittedly unsourced) and sexual exploitation of one of his slaves (sourced). Summary: "Minor grammatical / spelling errors revised."
    Oct 7, 2021 Appalachian music (diff)
    • Replaces the "various European and African influences" in the introduction with a phrase implying the music's origins were European, and that African-American influence only came later, which is untrue.
    • Rewords " call and response format ... was adopted by colonial America" to say " ... was also common in colonial America".
    • Removes entire paragraph about African-Americans introducing the banjo to white Southerners. Further down, changes "African banjo" to just "banjo".
    • Summaries: "Added links to traditional folk music wikis" and "Verbiage clean-up".
    Nov 27, 2021 Steve Sailer (diff)
    • Removes all mention of Sailer, backed by sources, as holding racist, white supremacist, and anti-semitic views in the introduction.
    • Removes description of Sailer's human biodiversity theory as pseudoscientific and racist.
    • Summary is "Added a link to human biodiversity" – true, but leaves out the 6,000 deleted bytes. Makes the same edit two more times, but is reverted each time.
    Jan 26, 2022 Mongoloid (diff)
    • Removes phrase calling it a disproven theory. Replaces sentence on racist origins in Western scholars with mention of Eastern scholars also promoting the theory (unsourced). Adds a phrase saying that actually, it's up for debate.
    Jul 6, 2022 Indian Mills, New Jersey (diff)
    • Deletes phrase about white colonists displacing Native American families. Summary: "Removed a dead link".
    Feb 20, 2023 Myth of meritocracy (diff)
    • Changes sentence on institutional racism to describe it as "theoretical institutional racism".
    Mar 26, 2023 Millford Plantation (diff)
    • Hides the plantation's origins in slavery by renaming description from "forced-labor farm" to "farmstead". Summary: "Added link to slavery in the USA".
    Jun 17, 2023 John Birch Society (diff)
    • Removes mention of the society being right-wing, far-right, and radical right in introduction.
    • Further down, removes description as being ultraconservative and extremist, and Southern Poverty Law Center's classification as antigovernment.
    • Summary: "Removed faulty and vague links."
    Jan 9, 2025 Robert Gould Shaw (diff)
    • Removes sentence on the battle inspiring African-Americans to join the Union Army during the Civil War. Summary: "Grammatical clean-up".
    Jan 9, 2025 Virginia Dare (diff)
    • Edits the page again four years later, this time using VDARE's closing as an excuse to remove all mention of it. Claims it is "no longer relevant", which is a crazy argument.

    The IP doesn't make enough edits at a time for vandalism warnings to rise to level 4, and thus has never been blocked (which is why I'm reporting this here and not at WP:AIV). These groups of edits are also spaced out over months, so a different user warns the IP each time (eight times so far!). The user, unfamiliar with the IP's editing history, treats the old warnings as "expired" and simply issues another level 1 or 2 warning.

    I believe this IP should be banned for a while. Unfortunately, there are probably many more like this one that haven't been caught yet. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    I spot checked these and yeah this is bad. Using false and misleading edit summaries to remove in most cases sourced descriptions to slant articles. spryde | talk 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Jesus Christ. Blocked for two years, since it looks like the IP is stable. charlotte 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you! Iiii I I I (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this discussion is a good example of providing all the infomation needed to the admins to make the decision. If only everyone who complained here did the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Egl7, anti-Armenian behaviour

    Egl7 indef'd for being here to argue instead of building an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Egl7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Egl7 clearly has bone to pick with Armenia, including dancing on the fine line of Armenian genocide denial, not to mention severe WP:CIR issues. As a Russian admin admit perfectly put it when they indeffed Egl7; "Since the participant clearly came to Misplaced Pages to fight, I have blocked him indefinitely, because with such edits one cannot expect constructiveness from him."

    1. Egl7 never tries to take responsibility for their actions, instead being upset and obsessing over that I didn't revert a random IP that added "Armenian" under "common languages" in an infobox almost two years ago , mentioning that 7 (!) times
    2. According to Egl7, having three things (out of 25) about Armenia on my userpage - being part of the WikiProject Armenia, being interested in the history of Greater Armenia, and opposing the denial of the Armenian genocide, means I support "Armenia's actions" , whatever that means. They never explained it despite being asked to, which leads me to the next thing.
    3. Here is this incredibly bizarre rant by Egl7 for me having stuff about Armenia on my userpage and not Azerbaijan, accusing me of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and whatnot;
    4. Egl7 does not understand when someone is not interested in engaging in WP:FORUM whataboutism, instead resorting to WP:HARASS, first on my talk page , then an article talk page , then their own talk page . This random question about the Khojaly massacre appeared after I asked them if they denied the Armenian Genocide since they considered me having a userpage about it part of "supporting Armenia's actions". According to this well sourced Wiki section , the term "genocide" is a "fabrication" for the Khojaly massacre, which is "used to counter the narrative of the Armenian genocide."
    5. Dancing on the fine line of Armenian genocide denial, if not denying it
    6. Despite being blocked on the Russian Misplaced Pages for it, their first action here was trying the very same thing they were indeffed for ; changing "Nakhichevan" (Armenian spelling) to "Nakhichivan" (Azerbaijani spelling)
    7. I truly tried to have WP:GF despite their disruptive conduct and previous block, but this user is simply WP:NOTHERE. There also seems to be severe WP:CIR at hand, as they struggle understanding a lot of what I say, including even reading WP:RS, which I had to ask them to read 5 (!) times before I gave up. As seen in our long discussion , they also to struggle understand basic sentences/words, such as the difference between "official" and "common".

    I'm not going to respond to Egl7 here unless an admin wants me to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour

    WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User talk:HistoryofIran

    @HistoryofIran clearly has bone to pick with Azerbaijan, including reverting my good-faith work which includes correction of arrangement of the "Today is part of" infobox following the country, in which, at present, the largest part of the territory of the Nakhchivan Khanate is located. @HistoryofIran is reverting back changes, saying that my https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&diff=prev&oldid=1268162595 edit is not an improvement without any real reason and without offering any argument. Also they are stating that there is a restriction according to Misplaced Pages:GS/AA, while ignoring edits of other users. I asked them many times to open a discussion so both sides could offer different proposals which in turn would lead to a consensus. In response all my requests were ignored. Also they have been accusing me of having conflicts with other users and countries while I have never noted or mentioned any and they have been impolite to me all the time, while i have never been impolite or rude to them. I want to say that I am blocked on ru.wikipedia, again, because of no real reason(They are vandalizing and projecting their actions onto me) and now i'm even worried that en.wikipedia will do the same to me.


    They are also dancing on the fine line of denying Khojaly massacre, if not denying it.

    Thank You. Egl7 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    As a non-EC editor, you should not be discussing Armenia/Azerbaijan issues at all except for making specific, constructive edit requests on the relevant talk pages. Once you received notice about the restriction, none of your related edits were in good faith, and all may be reverted without being considered edit warring. And quite frankly, the diffs that HistoryofIran has presented about your behavior don't look great. Your behavior on Russian Misplaced Pages doesn't affect your rights on English Misplaced Pages, but since you brought it up, I have to agree that you were there and now here more to fight than to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @CoffeeCrumbs tell me, please, if there is a restriction why are everybody's edits are ignored except mine? You are not doing justice. Egl7 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because the restriction is specific to people who do not have extended confirmed status. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    i know that i'm being picky and can sound like a snitch, don't get me wrong, but, at least, i'm editing from an account while other users are editing from random IPs. How is it possible for a random IP to have an extended confirmed status? Egl7 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The person you created this obviously retaliatory report against is not an IP and does have EC status. The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not taking about @HistoryofIran here. Look up the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakhichevan_Khanate&action=history. You can see that there are IPs, edits of which were ignored even if those edits have been done after the restriction had been set. This is what makes it unfair. By this logic my edits should've been ignored too. Egl7 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    No IP has edited the page in question in nearly a year. You are complaining about a non-issue. signed, Rosguill 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The restriction has been set much earlier than a year. Egl7 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Right, but at ANI we deal with urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. The IP edits here are old news. Further, having now reviewed the page's last 5 years of history...out of 7 IP edits made, 5 were reverted almost immediately, 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (Special:Diff/1203058517), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (Special:Diff/1177447457, which added "Armenian language"). You'll notice upon minimal investigation, however, that HistoryofIran's most embattled edits to this page were to remove "Armenian language" from the article in July of 2023; it's rather disingenuous to accuse them of all people of turning a blind eye here. signed, Rosguill 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    This does not refute what I said above. Egl7 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are actually 2 or more of them. I guess it's his duty to support both sides and remove or add information which is or is not necessary. Egl7 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here at this point, but it also doesn't matter. HoI raised multiple valid concerns regarding the quality of your editing in an area that per our community guidelines, you should be intentionally avoiding. In response, you filed a retaliatory report and are now arguing technicalities that are tangential to the substance of HoI's initial report. The fact that you are arguing such trivial, irrelevant points is evidence against you in these proceedings. Your best course of action is to follow Simonm223's advice above. Failure to take that advice at this point is almost certain to end with you blocked. signed, Rosguill 16:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? Egl7 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's not. However, someone making an inappropriate edit without being caught does not make your inappropriate edits into appropriate ones. There have been many successful bank robberies in history, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to rob the bank next to my grocery store. You need to start focusing on how you conduct yourself, not on how others do, because right now, you appear to be headed towards a block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I understand you. But i want to note that no matter how successful are the robberies, a lengthy criminal investigation will be launched. In addition, i want to say that i wasn't aware of those edits before I did mine. Egl7 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    You did receive a warning on your talk page. Your conduct issues are not limited to violating ECP. You would be wise to heed the advice given in this thread from Simonm223 and Rosguill. The community does not have much patience for nationalist editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident? Egl7 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:GS/AA, The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. That includes complaints about other editors. Which you should know already, as you have been repeatedly warned about GS/AA and should have read that page carefully. signed, Rosguill 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    So Is there a rule, that a non-EC editor can't report an incident, which in my case is "HistoryofIran, anti-Azerbaijani behaviour"? I am asking this because you said that "The correct thing to do, the thing you should do if you want to enjoy any opportunity to continue participating in this project, is to immediately withdraw this complaint and commit to adherence with WP rules going forward". And still, what you said in this comment does not refute what I said above. Egl7 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Lists of everyone that has been sanctioned for GS/AA violations, or CT/AA violations more broadly, can be found at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Armenia_and_Azerbaijan#Individual_sanctions and further at WP:AELOG under each year's Armenia-Azerbaijan (CT/A-A) section. Note that this only lists people who repeatedly ignored warnings and got blocked for it, simple reverts are not logged. I would encourage you to avoid getting your own username added to that list. signed, Rosguill 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • All I see is Egl7 doubling down. I have already tried to tell them that there was nothing wrong with the IP edit they are fixiated on, and that it doesn’t excuse their unconstructice edits regardless. The fact that they were caught red handed in genocide denial and anti-Armenian conduct and then fruitlessly attempts to make me appear as the same with Azerbaijanis by copy-pasting part of my report and replace “Armenian” with “Azerbaijani” says a lot about this user. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @HistoryofIran "There was nothing wrong"
      As @Rosguill said 1 is arguably not covered by GS/AA (Special:Diff/1203058517), leaving exactly 1 edit that probably should have been reverted but wasn't (Special:Diff/1177447457, which added "Armenian language").
      As I understand you were aware or now are aware of those edits done by those IPs what tells me that you admit that you ignored or are ignoring the edits that have been done after the restriction has been set and now you are still stating that there was or is nothing wrong with those IPs' edits. Egl7 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      And we're done here. If you can read my comments here close enough to try to use them to make tendentious arguments at HoI, you should be able to understand that I already told you this is not even slightly appropriate. signed, Rosguill 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I endorse this block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Category: