| Revision as of 23:32, 9 August 2009 view sourceJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,529 editsm →user:Jclemens: sign← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:26, 24 January 2025 view source Axad12 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,879 edits →Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations: 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}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize =800K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 1177 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |||
| |key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| <!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| As this page concerns INCIDENTS:U | |||
| Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
| == ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles == | |||
| Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header. | |||
| {{atop|This section has been stale for a few days and was at the top of ANI (i.e. the oldest un-archived post) and about to be automatically archived without action. I find consensus for an indefinite (not infinite, you may appeal your restriction at ] if you can create some articles through AfC that demonstrate a better understanding of the policies) ban from creating articles in main space against ]. They may only create articles using the AfC process. This editing restriction will be logged at ]. ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| ] has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of ] and ] seems to be lacking substantially. | |||
| Do not place links in the section headers. | |||
| (Immediately UNDER the header is preferred). | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Entries may be refactored based on the above. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| --> | |||
| * was deleted for ] | |||
| == ]'s personal attacks on ] == | |||
| * on ] and ] grounds | |||
| There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue. | |||
| * on ] and ] | |||
| Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion. | |||
| *They've been warned about ] and . | |||
| Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews." | |||
| *] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in ) | |||
| Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. ] (]) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| :This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. ] (]) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Most recently there's ], which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted. | |||
| ::I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) ] (]) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. ] but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to ] someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a ] article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. ] 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. , , , , and that is just a sample. . | |||
| :Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. ] ] 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an ] cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D | |||
| ::I checked this ] which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. ] 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. ] (]) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. ] 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised: | |||
| :*1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "]," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated. | |||
| :*2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources. | |||
| :*3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory. | |||
| :*4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :*5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information. | |||
| :*6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality. | |||
| :*7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them. | |||
| :Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "]". ] (]) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.}} | |||
| ::I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between ] and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself. | |||
| ::{{tq|I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.}} | |||
| ::Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails ] doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass ] and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example | |||
| ::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}} | |||
| ::I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have ] issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass ] before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. ] 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that ''is'' in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. ] 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research. | |||
| * Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the ] policy. I propose and '''support''' a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating ], they gain that necessary understanding/competence. ] (]) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SUPPORT''' ban from article creation. ] ] 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' article creation ban. ] (]) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Comment:''' While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. ]. ] 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Even after I posted the source and copied/pasted direct text, he still . Then he whipped out the civility card when I called him on it. | |||
| :*:Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. ] (]) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :*'''Support''' Ban. | |||
| :] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with ]. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored. | |||
| ::I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. ] (]) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! ] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. ] 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: ]. There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) ] (]) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' This is editor is still creating dog poor articles ]. This is the second in days thats been speedied. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. ] ] 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Me (DragonofBatley) == | |||
| Real mature. ] (]) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save {{Ping|KJP1}} the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. ] (]) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very ] and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. ] (]) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Notifying other editors from the wider discussions {{Ping|PamD}}, {{Ping|Noswall59}}, {{Ping|Rupples}}, {{Ping|Crouch, Swale}}, {{Ping|KeithD}}, {{Ping|SchroCat}}, {{Ping|Tryptofish}}, {{Ping|Cremastra}} and {{Ping|Voice of Clam}}. If I missed anyone else sorry ] (]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ] ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of ], ], ] and now redirected ] and ]. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. ] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. ] (]) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on. | |||
| :I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions. | |||
| :I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends. | |||
| :Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --] (]) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? ] (]/]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? ] (]) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::These are good points. | |||
| :::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ] ] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ] ] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). {{u|KJP1}} provided a for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they ''understand'' source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. ] ] 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements ''and'' that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::That's a great point, you're right, @]. ] ] 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I responded to @] earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with ] ] and ]. Also conflict edit was not directed at @], there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. ] (]) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing. | |||
| *:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| The issues are ] and source integrity; ]; and the suggestion of ] while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability. | |||
| Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, ], which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises ] issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC. | |||
| As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Misplaced Pages works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. | |||
| And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on. | |||
| That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. ] (]) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me. | |||
| :At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --] (]) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. ] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference . ] (]) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on ] quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on ]. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ] feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. ] (]) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish. | |||
| ::::And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in ], ] and ]. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. ] (]) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Also, ] is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...] (]) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. ] (]/]) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. ] (]) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I appreciate that, I am just trying to understand not with yourself @] or @]. You two have been very patient and understanding. I was more trying to engage a reply with @] and @]'s earlier remarks above. But there seems to be an issue with building reply after reply so I am hoping now they can see the section around here and on my user page. I do not like to announce disabilites but I want to put them forward to hopefully engage some understanding that some of the edits or replies I have made are not out of spite or trolling. Just sometimes it can be hard and I try to open up where appropriate. Now is the best time as I am getting a lot of things to read and feel Voorts solution was enough to agree to. Also I am not looking to fall out with editors or make a war and peace. Just asking for some understanding aside from addressing other issues too. That is all. ] (]) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have been tagged above and intend to write a response. This thread was started at night where I live and I am travelling today and tomorrow for work, so have had very little time to consider a response. Do not feel obliged to keep this open for me - my thoughts are largely present at KPJ1's talkpage discussion; I will probably add concerns around understanding what a reliable source is in addition to the ] and ] concerns already raised. If this discussion is still open tomorrow evening, I will try to find the time to respond properly. Thanks, —] (]) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| :As stated above, my thoughts are present at KJP1’s talk page. In sum, I have seen three discernible issues: (1) content quality issues; (2) civility and general conduct; and (3) potential sock-puppetry. I will leave out (3) as others seem content to discount that and I note he has repeatedly denied evading a ban. | |||
| I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop. | |||
| :There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done. | |||
| So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". ] (]) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above. | |||
| :Are you for real? ] (]) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, <b>this needs to be a final warning</b> in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -] (]) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. <font color="green">]</font> 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? ] (]/]) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —] (]) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| (I wasn't pinged here, but I had been at ].) DragonofBatley has been at this noticeboard before, in a section they started in May 2023, ]. {{U|PamD}} stated there that they became aware of DragonofBatley's edits in 2021 and had since been checking and fixing them and trying to advise DragonofBatley. It emerged that others had been trying to advise and assist them, in particular {{U|Crouch, Swale}}. There was further discussion at their talk page (including overly verbose advice from me, I was trying to be clear) and the editor mulling whether to leave. (). I gather that they did not leave, but that their editing has continued to be poor and the number of editors noticing this, trying to help, and discussing the problem has increased further. It pains me to say so, but I think at this point ] has to be seriously considered. DragonofBatley's editing presents a number of problems that are taking up a lot of editorial time to fix resulting damage to the encyclopaedia. (Points that follow in descending order of importance to me.) | |||
| From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: '] is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with : he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here. | |||
| :Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (]). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content calling it "irrelevant". At ], PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article ], , cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, ], the entire Architecture section was . However, their church articles always contain something like {{tq|The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings.}} sourced to ''achurchnearyou.com'', often as a separate "Present day" section. of ] (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose: {{tq|All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs.}} (And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing ] and ], both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.) | |||
| * Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as , was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.) | |||
| * Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles. | |||
| There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note {{U|Liz}} has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that ] instance (at the end of , which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. ] (]) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Nothing new apparently=== | |||
| :All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to point to ]: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. ] (]) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly). | |||
| ::I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at ] and ], and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: ]. | |||
| ::I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing. | |||
| ::Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for ], which is also the example of a lead in ], starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{tl|cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice. | |||
| ::Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor. | |||
| ::The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, ] (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material). | |||
| ::It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations. | |||
| ::Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. ]] 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work === | |||
| I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See ]. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.] (]) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. ] (]/]) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've got some experience of ] investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. ] (]) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. ] (]) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. ] (]) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment'''—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —] <sup>(])</sup> 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution. | |||
| :::::In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/] in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --] (]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side. ] (]) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —] (]) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| ::::::::To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @] has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. ] (]) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the ]. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. ] (]) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks ] (]) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? ]] 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| {{U|voorts}} - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. ] (]) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. ''Sound of evil laughter.'') --] (]) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How's this draft proposal: {{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace<ins>, converting redirects to articles,</ins> or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects. | |||
| ::Having seen on ] yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing. | |||
| ::And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. ]] 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. ] (]/]) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. ] (]) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - ] (]) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: an infobox? a few words about local authority area? a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. ]] 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to ], never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. ]] 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks for the question ]. To clarify, I meant '''any''' expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing ''anywhere'' on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - ] (]) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " ]] 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --] (]) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Okay, looks good. @] what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{U|Cremastra}} - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. ] (]) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Hold on. This goes much further than @] wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? ] (]) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at ]. I've lost patience. ]] 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested: | |||
| :::::::::::::# No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects | |||
| :::::::::::::# No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?) | |||
| :::::::::::::# No editing in mainspace. | |||
| :::::::::::::]] 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.{{pb}}{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):{{pb}} | |||
| ::'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC. | |||
| ::'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded. | |||
| ::'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles. | |||
| :{{pb}}The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but '''would personally favour Option B'''. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into ], a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. ] (]) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: I made some changes. ] (]/]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. ] (]) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::p.s. ] this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. ] (]) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? ] (]) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. ] (]) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree. ] (]) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] and @]: option C amended below. ] (]/]) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? ]] 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. ] (]/]) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s) === | |||
| ::::I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{cot|Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus.}} | |||
| {{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s): | |||
| :'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC. | |||
| :::::Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at ] with little warning. ] (]) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD. | |||
| ::::::If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case. It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. ] (]) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except: (1) to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded; (2) to comment in AfD discussions or to oppose PRODs or CSDs regarding those articles; or (3) to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles. | |||
| The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's been suggested more than once that there should be an ] on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - ]). Based on the history at ANI, and his , and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Uninvolved editors ==== | |||
| ::::: They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the ]. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. ] (]) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose all'''. I would have voted '''Option B''', but the user demonstated enough maturity and self-criticism, meaning he's willing to improve his long-term contribution. Moreover, even if it could have been embarrassing to admit, he also cared enough to inform us he's on the ], and as a ] myself, I know that's hard. My two cents go to {{u|DragonofBatley}}. You're welcome! ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? ] (]) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <outdent> Uh? | |||
| *'''Proposal''': Could we maybe allow DoB to continue editing mainspace if, and only if, any additions/edits they make are supported by a reference, to which the quote that supports the edit must be added. That will make it easier for us to double check their work and allow DoB to refine their skills in supporting their edits.] (]) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal. | |||
| ==== Involved editors ==== | |||
| *B) None of these users except for FOTG are involved in the ] except for R2 who came much later. | |||
| :{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also '''support''' option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. '''Oppose''' option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. ''']''' (]) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose all''', as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --] (]) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''C''' if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: {{tq| If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree.}} I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) ] (]) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Prefer''' the less stringent '''option A''' because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on ], all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. ] (]) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. ''']''' (]) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with ] and ]. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. ] (]) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring ], I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - ] (]) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] at this point. I can see you do not like me. I can see this from both your wording of "sub-standard crap" and "go for a ban". Some choice wording and actions. I've already answered enough but your clearly made up your mind. Nothing else will convince you. Perhaps you should not engage further with me at this point. Cause nothing I say or do seems to provide enough evidence to quell your subtle dislike of me. Prehaps you should just let the other editors handle it. Im not gonna apologise further and try to change your opinion of me. I wont reply further to you at this point. Your wording is coming across as aggressive and threating to me. ] (]) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Absolute nonsense. I neither like nor dislike you. I have major concerns over your ability to edit and I stand by my judgement of your output. I have further concerns over your decision to create category pages and work on categories while the thread was going on rather than start clearing up the mess you’ve made. All you’ve done is provide more evidence that you lack the ability to edit within the guidelines. Again, this is nothing to do with liking or not liking you as an individual (I’m entirely ambivalent about you) but it is about your output and the additional time and effort you are making others go through to tidy up the mess you’ve made. ] (]) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. ] (]) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| ==== Discussion ==== | |||
| * I think I would be happier if: | |||
| # there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400). | |||
| # I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "{{tq|This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}.}}" This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB '''prove''' to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - ] (]) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? ''']''' (]) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See ]. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). ]] 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ping|KJP1|Cremastra}} Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">{{snd}}Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, '''before''' posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be. | |||
| :Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view. | |||
| :I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community ''consensus'' to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus. | |||
| :I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --] (]) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – ] and ] also apply here. --] (]) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{re|Tryptofish}} I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the ]. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance).{{snd}}] (] <b>·</b> ]) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --] (]) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. ]] 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. ] (]) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. ] (]) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. ] (]) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too ] for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. ] (]) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. ] (]) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but ]. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case. | |||
| :::::The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with ''structure'' while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe ''structure'' to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --] (]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I ] KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. ] (]/]) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in. | |||
| :::::::I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time? | |||
| :::::::They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them. | |||
| :::::::Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors. | |||
| :::::::TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. ] (]) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] {{tqq| list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed}} there's ]. ] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @] - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! ] (]) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. ] (]) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{U|Blue-Sonnet}} - That would be really helpful, particularly your perspective on how best to help ] with the reviewing task. As we've not been able to bottom-out the restriction wording yet, I'm going to take Voorts' advice and get DragonofBatley going on some reviewing. My intended approach was to suggest that they take, say fifteen articles to start: five churches, five places , five railway stations. (these cover about 95% of all of the articles created). Mark these on the table as "DoB Review". Then, have a careful re-read of the editing advice that Cremastra/PamD and others have put on his Talkpage. Then, thinking about what we are reviewing for: | |||
| ::::::::::::* Sources - do they really VERIFY the content, or are they just a mention of the name, sometimes not the right name? | |||
| ::::::::::::* Sources - do they add up to "Significant coverage in Reliable Sources", so that the article really is NOTABLE? Here, '''significant''' is very important, three quick mentions of a place don't add up to significant coverage. | |||
| ::::::::::::* Sources - if they don't, what other options are there? Here, it would be really good for DragonofBatley to look at the suggested actions other editors have made in the table; REVISE (with new sources)/MERGE/RE-DIRECT/send to AfD. | |||
| ::::::::::::* Sources - if they do, are any other revisions/clean-ups required? | |||
| :::::::::::make what they think are suitable changes, record them on the Table, and pick up another. And take them SLOWLY! When 15 are done, flag it on the Table Talkpage and we can have a look. I'll post this on the article Talkpage and we can see if it works for DragonofBatley. I'm fine, of course, with amendments /alternatives to this if he, you or others think there's a better way forward. ] (]) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::That sounds good. In the interest of keeping this discussion moving towards a consensus, I'd like to check the current temperature of opinion. It sounds to me like there has been a favorable reaction to having a resolution that emphasizes structure. But before I propose anything, do any editors still prefer to have minimal restrictions? --] (]) 22:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Agree with a "structure" for reviewing Dragon's articles and Dragon's involvement. Their 'own' articles are where it seems the vast majority of problematic editing lies. Oppose mainspace editing restriction because I'm not satisfied a strong enough case has been made. To be clear, I'm not "acting more out of a feeling". Of course, should Dragon agree to a mainspace editing restriction that would change things. ] (]) 08:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::{{ec}} I've already had my say indicating 'absolutely nothing but article fixing' (there is ''plenty'' of evidence around their inability to source properly - pick any off the list they've started and have a look), and would still strongly prefer that was the starting point until, say, DoB have worked on fifteen articles they started to raise them to an acceptable level (per KJP's comment just above). That should give a very rough initial indication whether there is sufficient willpower, competence and desire to continue editing at the required level. The restriction could be loosened after that to allow some other steps (eg, allowed to create two or three articles at AfD if they wish - on the understanding KJP or Cremastra (or other acceptable parties) review those articles prior to them being moved to mainspace). - ] (]) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I'd favour a restriction which means they will focus entirely on upgrading existing poor articles, and so stop editing not only mainspace but categories, templates, portals, etc. If we only say "no mainspace editing" I can imagine a flurry of creation of unnecessary categories, navboxes, or something else no-one thought to exclude. Perhaps allow talk page access (both article and user) so that if they see something which really needs correcting they can make a post suggesting it or alert a relevant editor. ]] 08:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles == | |||
| *C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above. | |||
| ] keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on ], however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them. | |||
| *D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where I just discovered that today.. | |||
| Diffs: | |||
| *. To say this ANI is genuinely about behavior is naive at best and dishonest at worst. | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288 | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609 | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383 | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559 | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036 | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172 | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Citation '''bot''' is an automated process, and not a human. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. ] (]) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You can add this to the page in question – <nowiki>{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}</nowiki> – or you can add this to a specific citation – <nowiki>{{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}}</nowiki> – to keep the bot away. See -- ].]] 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that ] did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on ], see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Citation bot is not a ], but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed: | |||
| ::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348 | |||
| ::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078 | |||
| ::"All ] apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account." | |||
| ::-] ] (]) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the ''person'' who is ''using'' the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of these seem to have been invoked by {{u|Abductive}}, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? ] (]) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on ]. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee {{rpa}}. Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. ] (]) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles: | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133 | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054 | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369 | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875 | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493 | |||
| :Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates. | |||
| :These edits were suggested by the following user: | |||
| :*] | |||
| :] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Found another bad date in another article: | |||
| ::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by ] | |||
| ::Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. ] (]) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Found another bad date in another article: | |||
| :::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference) | |||
| :::Suggested by user: | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates ] (]) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". ] (]) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Because it is not necessarily an error. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It is still about Citation bot. ] (]) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by ]. ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You have given the operators ] to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org).  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? ] (]) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits.]] 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the ]. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —] (]) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that.]] 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus." | |||
| :::::-] | |||
| :::::] is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It would be best if the bad source was removed, per ] and ]. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes.]] 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Can you quote the part of ] which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. ? ] (]) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —] (]) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about ], not ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about ''your'' use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. ] (]) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] specifically says {{tq|The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. '''In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account.''' Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot}}. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —] (]) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{tqq|I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.}} I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to ] to me... - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them. | |||
| ::::::::::::As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —] (]) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>moved down from the middle of the above comment (]). – ] (]) (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::::::::So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right??]] 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. ] (]) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Unsupervised bot and script use has ]. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix ].... ] (]) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We're into ]. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. ] (]) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{pb}}I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to {{u|Whoop whoop pull up}} two weeks ago () about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed ''me'' to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have ''continued'' to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at {{Section link|User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|Checking IABot runs}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. ''Both'' should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here ''neither''. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it. | |||
| :* Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support: | |||
| :** ] says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, '''whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page'''" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot). | |||
| :** BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of ]. Now, ROLE ''does'' have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple '''managers'''", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're ''developed and maintained'' by a team of people (rather than ones that can be ''used'' by multiple people). | |||
| :** Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to ''50,000'' pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the ''only'' people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved ''despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible''; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they ''were, in fact, approved'' implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface. | |||
| :** ] seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page. | |||
| :** ] says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ''''", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user. | |||
| :** ] provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to. | |||
| :* Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support: | |||
| :** ] says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved ''despite'' the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance). | |||
| :] <sup>] 🏳️⚧️ ]</sup> 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy. | |||
| ::"Both should take reponsibility" | |||
| ::-] at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 ] (]) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? ] <sup>] 🏳️⚧️ ]</sup> 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere. | |||
| ::::Policy is very clear, '''don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus.''' ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. {{pb}}These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. ] (]) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Or, as ] puts it: {{tq|Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.}} ] (]) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Citation bot has not been {{tqq|approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking}}. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at {{slink|User:Citation bot|Bot approval}}. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.{{pb}}But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.{{pb}}If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. ] (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot.]] 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::☝🏽{{Pb}}It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.{{pb}}I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.{{pb}}Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.{{pb}}Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.{{pb}}I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against {{u|Abductive}} or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion ''somewhere'' specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping {{u|AManWithNoPlan}}, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. ] (]) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots ''and'' checking the results.<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).{{pb}}However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.{{pb}}Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.{{pb}}Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, ] (]) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots"}} Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. ] (]) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. ] (]) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 ] (]) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute? If you truly believe that version I ''strongly suggest mentorship at the very least'' because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.] (]) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Is there anything left here to discuss? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. ] (]) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says {{code|"datePublished":"2023-02-25T18:46:42+00:00",}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. ] (]) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::1. Not a news article. | |||
| *:::::2. Intention is irrelevant. These edits are disruptive regardless. | |||
| *:::::3. Maybe program it to not add dates to modified works. ] (]) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You're claiming it's disruptive without explaining why you think that. You're going to need to actually explain your reasoning if you want people to agree with you. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools == | |||
| ::: Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. ] (]) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|PEPSI697}} | |||
| I believe this editor has a history of assuming bad faith towards other editors and has been misusing tools designed to revert vandalism; their judgement has repeatedly been clouded by personal vendettas and feelings, which in my opinion is not appropriate for an editor to have, especially one with rollback rights. | |||
| :::: I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore ]. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) ] (]) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| My history with this editor started on December 24 2024, when I left him (and another editor) {{Diff2|1264943166|a message}} for edit warring - he was getting close to three reverts, the other editor appeared to not be vandalizing the article (they were putting a formula in the lead, it was a chemistry article) so I simply encouraged them to talk it out - I did not know at that point that the other editor was a LTA. I did not intend this message to be bad faith either, shortly after I sent that message another person {{Diff2|1264946563|made a discussion on the talk page}} about the addition of the formula in the lead. Pepsi responded to and then removed the warning from his talk page, absolutely fine. Then, he leaves me {{Diff2|1264940021|this}} message, saying I did something to make him angry and that he expected an apology from me. I was really confused, it's bit weird and out of nowhere to demand an apology from someone, and I {{Diff2|1264940623|didn't understand what exactly was the issue}}, the warning of edit warring was not left in bad faith but an honest attempt to get two editors to discuss and reach a consensus. This was the first time I became aware of his assumption of bad faith and his problem with anger; nonetheless, I don't want drama so I {{Diff2|1265117356|wish him merry Christmas}}, he wishes me, everything is fine. | |||
| ::::: Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. ] (]) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more ''un''involved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —] <sup>(])</sup> 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as ''unaware''. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural ] that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. ] (]) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: {{Diff2|1269540618|1}}, {{diff2|1268720318|2}}, {{diff2|1268521356|3}}, {{Diff2|1268313652|4}}, {{Diff2|1268308516|5}}, {{Diff2|1268121077|6}}, {{Diff2|1268119998|7}}, {{Diff2|1268118180|8}}, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is ]. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor ({{u|Augmented Seventh}}): {{diff2|1269323555|1}}, {{diff2|1269333853|2}}, {{diff2|1269126403|3}}. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15. | |||
| ===Formal mentorship=== | |||
| I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —] <sup>(])</sup> 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. ] (]) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to '''find support for''' your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. ] (]) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to ] and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; ''someone'' has to do ''something''!) ] (]) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for ] so that it's less hopeless. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::1RR ''without'' other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part. Repetitive arguments which usually amount to ]. If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting. Complete disruption and a total time drain.] (]) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi {{Diff2|1269543780|replaced}} my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential ] violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to {{Diff2|1269546279|seek clarification}} as to why they did this on their talk page. In {{Diff2|1269548452|their response to me}}, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me {{Diff2|1269576325|this}} message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see {{Diff2|1269577089|this}} edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me {{Diff2|1269580448|this}} message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. {{Diff2|1269580707|This}} edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me. | |||
| In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ] (]) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - {{diff2|1269549064|here}} they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when ] ] for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of ] without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. ]] 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is certainly constructive. ] (]) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uh? -] (]) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wikifan's thoughts read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -] (]) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I mean, more correct: -] (]) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. ] (]) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at ] should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a ]. Take me away I guess. ] (]) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and ], you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. ]] 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wikifan wrote: . Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> | |||
| :I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. , for example, they say: {{tpq|Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. }}. You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. ] (]) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. ({{Diff2|1269544073|1}}, {{Diff2|1269540089|2}}, {{Diff2|1269335610|3}}, {{Diff2|1269126904|4}} {{Diff2|1269098577|5}}, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). ]] 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seeing {{tq|no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism}} is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ ] (]) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. ] (]) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the ] (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." ] (]) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments {{Diff2|1269580448|demanding}} that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. ]] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it. | |||
| ::::: | |||
| ::::@]: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are ''obvious'' vandalism. | |||
| ::::: | |||
| ::::Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway, {{tqq|You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents}} - right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you ''will'' stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you ''might'' stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. ]] 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{nacc}} {{ping|PEPSI697}} A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page ], ] and ]. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at ] and ] because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.{{pb}}FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on ] that you get {{tq|stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it}} when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been ]. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if you {{tq|sometimes don't understand what some words mean}}, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.{{pb}}Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- ] (]) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to ]. ]] 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. ] (]) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future === | |||
| ::::: Yes, FOTG is manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. He unilaterally warred out almost every incident about Israel and Jews, even those that were clearly of terrorist-nature. And when I restored what I perceived to be vandalism or premature deletion, and ask that he provide a thorough reasoning for his wholesale deletion, he accused me of being troll, pov warrior, etc...etc...etc. This is consistent with his behavior in other articles. So fishing for diffs that users might interpret the wrong way if they aren't fully aware of the discussion is suspect. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> | |||
| ::::::Wikifan: no one is to be accused of anti-Semitism freely. ''You'' wrote the offensife line. Go away. (To be clear: why do editors and even admins here always end up: second chance? After ten?) -] (]) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality. I'm sorry if that's "out of line." ] (]) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::''You'' wrote "manically obsessed" (with whatever). That's a disqualification beforehand. Then do not start ''reasoning'' afterwards. -] (]) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think if Wikifan wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship, the piling-on, especially by editors who have diametrically opposed POVs to Wikifan's, should stop now. <font color="green">]</font> 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No offense IronDuke but does not in any way sound like someone who "wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship." And then there is the fact that a fair amount of the commentators above also don't believe mentorship is going to solve the problem. Wikifan's own attitude only makes one wonder if they aren't correct.] (]) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is nothing inherently wrong with that post. I don't see how users who are active in on-going disputes (such as Pelle and R2), some of the disputes which have ended up pouring into noticeboards (OR noticeboard, edit-warring noticeboard, etiquette, etc...submitted by both Pelle and myself) should be allowed such a strong voice. I am very open to some kind of mentorship, but from my POV I'd say users like FOTG are in much dire need of assistance. ] (]) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::"nothing inherently wrong" with your post??? You still don't get it. Your posts are wrong. Just stop insulting editors, and from there you may talk. Maybe other too -- but stop it yourself. Not a "strong voice", ''insulting'' is what I say. Stop it. -] (]) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Criticizing an editors edits is not insulting. It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. You aren't recognizing or even remotely addressing the actions of FOTG, for good reason perhaps. | |||
| :::::No, criticizing is not insulting. Stating "manic obsession" is insulting, and personal only, and not relevant to the article at all. Drop it. -] (]) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Coming from someone who believes that the Israel-Palestinian articles on[REDACTED] are dominated by a ] of "''organised, agendised ].''" FOTG has a manic obsession and whether or not you misconstrue that as "insulting" is of no importance. He has major issues and it is seen in his mindless reverting of everything remotely Israel. He follows me to articles I work on and reverts my edits, and then harasses me on those articles. So please, who is the victim here? I'm trying to be as cordial as I can be but FOTG has been given a free pass for far to long. And then posting an ANI to save face, well...that's not unique for wiipedia. ] (]) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day. | |||
| :::No one can speak from experience about your behavior unless they have witnessed it. Isn't it odd that while many such editors think this behavior is a problem no one has come here to say that they are wrong and that you have been behaving as a reasonable Wikipedian? The closest thing to support from a third party here has been "be fair and look at the other guy's behavior too," or "OK already Wikifan says he's willing to accept mentorship." Despite this you continually act like the real problem is with the supposed "cabal" of editors whose are only related to each other because of their negative interactions with you. Meanwhile people become less and less inclined to believe you will be able to change your ways at all. Keep it up.] (]) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| ::::Pelle, I lodged an edit-war report against you when you started owning CAIR (and ownership that has been confirmed by other users). I also posted a noticeboard incident requesting a fact-check on how you continually edited-out all my additions with "original research" when the content was thoroughly cited. I don't see why I should have to sit here and be lectured by editors who have a compromising history. I'm open to mentorship, but dismiss all of this bandwagoning as pure harassment. ] (]) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content. | |||
| :::::And your numerous disruptive reports at various noticeboards resulted in what exactly? Must be a cabal at work.] (]) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| ::::::OR inquire was never responded because you hijacked it, and the edit-warring ANI should have succeeded but as several users confirmed, its lack of response can be sourced from the personal feelings of the over-seeing admin. This ANI is the poster child for disruption. ] (]) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :2: I see that other contributors on Misplaced Pages leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one. | |||
| :::::::Wikifan, can I ask you, just for the next few posts, not to focus ''at all'' on other editors, but only on yourself? Is there anything you feel ''you'' have done inappropriately in the course of editing Misplaced Pages, either in terms of the way you handle content, or the way you interact with others? Where do you feel you could have done better? Which issues do you feel a mentor could usefully help you with? <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| ::::::::Sure, like every user on Misplaced Pages. A mentor could help me navigate through Misplaced Pages bureaucracy, as many editors are very skilled at doing. Avoiding blocks, relying on civil POV-pushing, moving content disputes to ANIs, etc..etc. SlimVirgin, remember when you edit-warred at ], removed all my additions, and threatened to send me to ArbComb if I don't heed to your demands? Then I was blocked for a week after I unknowingly reversed your reverts when you submitted an edit-war report. That was a carefully crafted strategy and I've watched many users do it to each other, and it's rather depressing. But to answer your question with all sincerity, I would hope a mentor could help me cite policy in-talk more competently. Maybe carve a slightly better tactful approach to discussion, even in the midst of heated and hostile debate. Normal stuff I guess. It's difficult to assess myself under the current circumstances and what I consider to be an extremely bad faith ANI. If this were closed, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussion mentorship. ] (]) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly? | |||
| :::::::::Mentorship won't work if you won't take responsibility for anything. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| ::::::::::I think this thread increasingly illustrates why 1RR probably won't work, and why a ] is needed (that structure would discussion room to breathe, without Wikifan responding to every comment by attacking somebody (generally the author)). ] <sup>]</sup> 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, if you haven't noticed this ANI has nothing to do with edit-warring, so hats to ya. Second, this bandwagon, a bandwagon started by a certified-troll as demonstrated in his approach @ the pertinent article and wikihounding - started the ANI. I'm more than open to mentorship etc. but you are asking for blood in a bad-faith and unfair circumstances. If you dismiss my assessments of this forum as "attacking" well okay. Also, for accuracies sake, the title should be changed to, "Reasons why Wikifan needs to go." Otherwise, the current charter is, for the most part, largely false. | |||
| ::1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool. | |||
| ::2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection. | |||
| ::3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. ]] 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I accept your apology. ]] 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Response and apology from PEPSI697 === | |||
| :::::::::::''Cliffnotes'': FOTG made a dubious claim of personal attacks, but sifting through the discussion you will find just the opposite. Anyways, commence banishment! :D ] (]) 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If y'all need a totally uninvolved, experienced user for a mentorship, I'd be happy to help out. I only stumbled upon this conversation because I can't sleep and have no prior dealings with Israel related articles or any of the editors involved here. I do have experience dealing with conflict in my own areas of interest. Cheers, ] (]) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't been on WP long enough to act as a mentor. However, if Wikifan needs an open ear he should know that he can call on me to provide a comment at any time and I will do my best to be as helpful as possible.--] (]) 08:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The first thing I want to do is apologise and then address the actions. It was not my intention to make anyone feel victimised or attacked. I want a good relationship with all the contributors on Misplaced Pages and to learn from them if I can. I realise that I am a little out of my depth with RC patrolling and so I'm going to take a break to better educate myself on vandalism or policy violation. I wonder if the community has any suggestions on how I can contribute in another way to Misplaced Pages that will not cause me these kinds of problems. Misplaced Pages is a big thing in my life and gives me a sense of achievement and I really want this to continue. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===More Uninvolved Admins=== | |||
| While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.] (]) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at ]. ] (]) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.] (]) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not claiming that. ] (]) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. <font color="green">]</font> 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the ] or looking at the ]? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion. | |||
| ===A general comment=== | |||
| :Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is guidance on how to use the {{tlx|Talk header}} found on its documentation page at ] and also at ]. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in ] and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like ], ], ], ], ] for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at ] or ]. -- ] (]) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with ], but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get ] article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|5}} Perhaps an administrator could close this discussion and all its related sub-discussions now that the OP and PEPSI697 seem to have amicably resolved their issue. Maybe all that's needed here is a firm warning to PEPSI697 to try to be careful in the future, and perhaps some encouragement to try not to over use these tools if doing so risks placing them in high-stress situations where they might lose their cool, with a reminder that the community might be less understanding the next time around if they end up back at ANI for doing something similar. -- ] (]) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Good idea there. I agree that me, Jolielover and the others involved resolved this issue. I absolutely agree with this idea to give a firm warning on my talk page. <b>]</b> ] | ] 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| At the risk of straying from the immediate problem, I would like to point out that the kind of vicious conflicts we see here are inherent in the way the Misplaced Pages is edited and the way the Five Pillars are interpreted in conflict areas. This is a clear case of narrative war, with each side incapable of seeing neutrality as defined by the other side. In the Middle East, there is no neutral point of view. | |||
| ::Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you {{tq|absolutely agree with}} isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- ] (]) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, sorry. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-neutral paid editor == | |||
| What is more, the word "terrorism" is editorial wherever it appears. That a reliable source refers to an incident as terrorism does not make it so. Reliable sources have POVs just like everyone else. | |||
| @] is heavily editing ] in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Because of the way NPOV and RS are applied in Middle East articles, conflict of this type is inevitable. The warring parties are not to blame. The system is to blame. | |||
| :That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits: | |||
| To avoid these conflicts, then, requires a radical rethinking of how to apply the five pillars in conflict situations. I suggested such an approach in ], and would love to see a serious attempt to experiment with the ideas proposed there. --] (]) 12:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals. | |||
| :All due respect Ravpapa, when the same user is having the same problems over and over it no longer is just "the system". Now Wikifan will likely say I am only here because of content disputes with him, but I do not plan on arguing for his banning. But a bit of history should be made clear. See ], ], ], ]. Above he pretty much says he would like a mentor to teach him how to wikilaywer more effectively, I think that would be a disaster. What he needs is to keep from writing anything about others motives or beliefs. It really is that simple, if he does not keep trying to call others "manically obsessed with Jews" or "antisemites" or other such insults he would not be here over and over. I have no idea about FOTG, I didnt look at the talkpage in question. But WF needs to do one of 2 things at this point. Either stop making such allegations to other users, or provide some actual evidence of racist editing. One of the two editors should be blocked, either for editing in an antisemitic manner or for making repeated false accusations of antisemitism. But wikifan cannot be allowed to continue saying these things without proving them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity. | |||
| ::All due respect Nableezy, it is pretty obvious that most if not all the editors speaking up against Wikifan are very active pro-Palestinian editors. Ravpapa has a very good point about the system not working well when you have a content/narrative war like in IP. ] (]) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :* - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted. | |||
| :::I have content/narrative disagreements/wars with a lot of people, but it doesn't lead to ANI. There is a pattern of consistent personal attacks and bad faith assumptions peppering most of Wikifan's talk page commentary, and an inability to acknowledge its problematic. People shouldn't be asked to overlook that because there's a raging ethnic conflict in the background. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :* Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing. | |||
| ::::Without talking about Wikifan specifically, it's pretty obvious that in this kind of dispute most of the people pushing for sanctions are those on the other side of the content/narrative war. ] (]) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably ]. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. ] (]) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually what's pretty obvious is that even those who share Wikifan's views can't defend his behaviour; and can only defend him by attacking the motives of others and generally deflect away from the issue of ''Wikifan's behaviour''. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::done ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But this thread '''is''' "about Wikifan specifically" and not about some general IP narrative war (which I take no part in personally btw). So why are people incapable of speaking ''specifically'' in defense of Wikifan's behavior as opposed to simply trying to deflect the discussion? To reiterate Tiamut's point, major disagreements, some of which are very deep and very old, are an everyday reality here at Misplaced Pages but they usually don't end up at AN/I. When they do there is almost always a behavior problem that goes beyond content disputes -- whether the problem is with the person being grilled or conversely with the person abusing the noticeboards (or both). Either way, a discussion here signals something beyond a content dispute.] (]) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] reasons for them. | |||
| ::::::You don't take part in IP but you didn't arrive here clean of prejudice, did you? Anyway, Ravpapa made a general comment (see section header) and I was addressing that. ] (]) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::#By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as ''"has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world"'' and ''"The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality"'' + ''"The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"?'' Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate ] and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a '''very''' strong statement cited to..., seemingly not even peer-reviewed. | |||
| ::::::: As I've said, this ANI was posted by a textbook troll who warred out every incident he didn't like and when I called him on it, he went on and on and on about how I'm an agent of Zion. Seriously? Now FOTG has been hounding me at ] and ], and a couple other articles warring out all my edits with little reasoning. And now an ANI? No editor has recognized this. I said FOTG was manically obsessed with Jews and Israel several times - I meant it and it wasn't an attack but simply an accurate assessment of his editing approach. He removed 9+ incidents exclusively about Jews, reverted anyone who dared touch his edits, and then started a nice long dispute about how we should re-define what is a terrorist incident to exclude Israel. Yes I'm obviously partial here but he came off extremely combative and very, very offensive. I posted an ANI but it was assessed as a content dispute and not a behavioral problem. It's not like FOTG has been the nicest editor to ever exist. : ) ] (]) 05:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::#Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally ], and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. '''If''' that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, '''then''' it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it. | |||
| ::::::::The thing is, you don't get to decide what is or isn't attack. Calling someone manically possessed is a comment on the editor, not the editing. If they have a problem with it, you have offended them. Of course, "textbook troll" is much more clean-cut. Like before, I'm not saying that FOTG's hands are clean either, but you are certainly digging yourself into a pit. If you can leave diffs below (I made a space), perhaps this can go ahead with more sanity, and we can stop being "unaware" and start dealing with the full issue. ] (]) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::#Do you '''really''' think phrases like ''"China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments."'' are consistent with ]? '''Really?''' ''Maybe'' cutting '''all''' of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that. | |||
| ::::::::::Okay? Have you read through the talk discussion and looked the page history? He raided the article, maliciously axed out almost everything Jewish/Israel, warred any further attempts to add similar incidents, created long disputes that had little to no relevance, and accused me of being a member of the pro-Israel lobby, POV-pusher, troll, etc. He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive. If I were to go into ] and remove every mention of "Mohamed," I'd expect a similar, or perhaps even violent reaction. So I sincerely apologize if I was out of line and will make an effort to be more tactful. ] (]) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently . It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary. | |||
| Just to clarify, my comments were not meant as a defense or excuse for Wikifan. People need to take responsibility for their actions. I was only pointing out that where there is a leaky pipe, there is wood rot. You can cut out and replace the wood, but if you want to really stop the rot, you need to fix the pipe. --] (]) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably ]" seems downright ]. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I think Misplaced Pages should recognize that regular sources are not so reliable when it comes to this conflict. So, one can impose a restriction on the type of sources that can be admitted. E.g. one could decide that only peer reviewed academic articles written by historians can be used as a source. ] (]) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns ? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a ] and ] manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that ] is supposed to prevent. --] (]) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like ], you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't ''bad'' by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply ''not good enough'' or ''relevant enough'' for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards. | |||
| ::::Given ''this'' context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not ''obligated'' to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. ] (]) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @]'s paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @] provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/ | |||
| :My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. ] (]) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Adding'': Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 ] (]) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *An editor with a declared COI should ''never'' be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the {{tq|strongly discouraged}} wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:] So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this {{redacted|]}}? | |||
| *:Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that '''if''' is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering '''is not even seen anywhere on their front page''' - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as . The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. ] (]) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban)}} - that would be wrong. See ]; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we ''want'' editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read ], and especially ] Having a ''perspective'' on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. ] editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then ] needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors. | |||
| ::::It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah ] editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that ''every'' edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it ''strictly'' barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --] (]) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's ''not'' the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change {{tq|strongly discouraged}} to {{tq|prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism)}}. I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though. | |||
| ::::::Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be ''manually'' saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that {{tq|editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests}} - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I ''need'' to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to ''this'' case, rather than a general statement. | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tqq|So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this}} Uh, guys? Does ] mean nothing to you? - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Uninvolved admins please comment=== | |||
| *:@] - I think that '''sanction should be swiftly applied'''. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. ] ] 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ''Uninvolved admins please comment on what sanctions may be appropriate.'' | |||
| *::I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: {{ping|InformationToKnowledge}}, '''do not''' attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with ''anyone's'' real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the ''principles of privacy'' still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. ] ] 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Could we get an edit to ] for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. ] (]) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === ] back to Andrewjlockley === | |||
| OK, I've had enough. It's not enough that no-one is willing to defend Wikifan's behaviour, which encompasses comments such as "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (]). Now Wikifan's continuing attempt to derail this ANI discussion by attacking others and doing everything ''except'' discussing his own behaviour (eg insisting that I hatted is constructive) demonstrates such a ] behaviour that it makes me believe that a substantial sanction is required. I find it hard to believe that mentoring will be successful. I find it hard to believe that 1RR (which somebody proposed) will achieve anything either. Frankly, I'm rapidly reaching the view that Misplaced Pages - certainly on topics where Wikifan cannot play well with others - is simply better off without this particular 14-year old (]). Disclosure: I've had previous run-ins with Wikifan and we also have opposing views. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. '''However''', that does not change the fact she has been one of a '''literal handful''' of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in ] over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen. | |||
| :We have to try mentorship or 1RR (or a combination) first. If that fails then we can raise that here again. If a 1RR or 0RR is imposed, then Wikifan will know that the only way he can edit[REDACTED] is by cooporating with other editors. If Wikifan insults someone, then he'll only hurt himself. So, there is no need to make a lot of fuss about that. ] (]) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :With that in mind, I would like to say I have '''great''' difficulty assuming ] here - not when the OP editor {{redacted|]}}, which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective '''and''' when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report. | |||
| ::Thanks for the constructive criticism. So I guess that settles it? This certainly isn't an attempt to remove an editor you are currently in a content dispute with at not 1, but 2 articles. :D ] (]) 05:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the ], the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does. | |||
| :::AFAIK, I only reverted one edit to the BBC article by you a few days ago. I checked your recents edits to get an idea of the nature of the dispute and I saw an edit to the BBC article which had been vanadalized by an anon (not you). I also saw that your edit was problematic and I reverted that too because it gave far too much weight to a minor argument about Hamas. | |||
| :P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now, I don't care much about the wiki articles on Israel/Palestine anymore (I was involved there until 2 years ago), because they are not reliable anyway. So, I was not going to revert other edits by you that I found problematic. But I found to be BBC case to be different because I think the wiki article on BBC has more value than the Israeli/Palestinian articles. I stuck to one revert which more or less reverted to the consensus reached on the talk page. ] (]) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::With the greatest of respect @], your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @], or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether ] had a conflict of interest when they edited ], which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. ] (]) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: CountIblis: The ] policy clearly states that nobody should have to put up with being insulted and vilified on Misplaced Pages. Wikifan12345's continual attacks against me have not only derailed discussions that I've been involved with, they have soured my whole experience of Misplaced Pages. So, no, Wikifan12345 _is_ hurting other people than himself as he continues his campaign of harassment. And, no, 1RR or mentorship is not nearly enough, particularly as he fails to admit he has done anything wrong and seems to think that being mentored is just an opportunity to improve his wikilawyering skills. ] (]) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ]... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself. | |||
| :::All of this is pertinent. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that {{noping|EMSmile}} has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that {{noping|Andrewjlockley}} is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. ] concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too. | |||
| ::::The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If {{noping|InformationToKnowledge}} is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be ''they both should be'' though. | |||
| ::::Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. ] (]) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. ] ] 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please reread ], and especially ]. The suggestion that being a ''published academic on a subject'' constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of ], which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::as per {{redacted|]}} is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech. | |||
| :::Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. ] (]) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to ]. ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse. | |||
| ::: | |||
| ::: | |||
| :::If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. ] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of ] before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? ] (]) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for ] that arises as a result. | |||
| ::::::*With regards to ] has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the ). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner? | |||
| ::::::*AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for ''more'' SRM research in their day job {{redacted|encouragement of ]}}. Also, ] explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be ''against'' doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well? | |||
| ::::::*I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by ] on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides). | |||
| ::::::*Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). ] (]) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery or], but I'll respond anyway. | |||
| ::::::::I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm. | |||
| ::::::::Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wish to clarify the relationship between the (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG. | |||
| :::::Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was , for ten years, and is the l. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is , one of five authors of , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of . By quick count, of the other 14 authors on , one other is on the governing board, at least eight are , at least two are , and one is among . | |||
| :::::In the other direction, of ESG's , eight have signed the . | |||
| :::::The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. ] (]) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? ] ] 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine. | |||
| ::::::For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. ] (]) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an ''oversight'' on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Diffs=== | |||
| *:This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. ] ] 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that {{user|EMsmile}} has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is '''also not on'''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::... gonna ask in talk page of ] if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point ] (]) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::], I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ping|Liz}} the diff of them ''placing'' it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named ], then it constitutes ] (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at ] think it would be easier to avoid. | |||
| *:::::opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases. | |||
| *:::::alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? ] (]) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on ] of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant ] and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't ] people or contacting their employers. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to invite Wikifan and FOTG to place various annotated diffs that they find problematic in an orderly manner below. Having the two involved editors line up their complaints seems like the most straightforward way to comprehensively deal with the issue. Having the diffs lined up will also make it easier for uninvolved editors to comment comprehensively. ] (]) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Wait, so we are supposed to sift through the bloated talk discussion and post questionable diffs like this is a courtroom? This is must be a . ] (]) 05:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. ] <sup>]</sup>] 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, this is a way for us to actually come to a ''decision'' instead of being "unaware" or not seeing the big picture. This is me giving you the benefit of the doubt that there are things that FOTG did that were out of line before, that caused your uncivil reaction. Or, we can go the RfC route where the posting of diffs is formalized. Your choice. But for now, if the involved editors are not willing to put the work in to present their case, I don't see why anyone else should waste their time here. ] (]) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding. | |||
| :::Hm. Okay I've just seen this before and competing editors end up enumerating every diff to demonstrate cause of action. Diff's themselves can take issues out of context. I'm not on trial here Awickert, and as I've said the motivations for this ANI were bad and the context was abhorrent. I won't be on[REDACTED] for the next 3-5 days for travel-reasons but I'll try to sneak in intermittently. thanks. ] (]) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts. | |||
| *:::BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point, | |||
| *::::the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous. | |||
| *::::AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. ] (]) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia. | |||
| *:::::Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Does Wikimedian in Residence apply? === | |||
| === Repeated personal attacks on ] by ] -- can an uninvolved admin please comment on this or take action === | |||
| EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit[REDACTED] seems analagous to . See also ]. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no ]. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. ] (]) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? ] (]) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * "all of his reverts revolved around '''Israel and Jews'''."..."The fact the FOTG edits were blatant vandalism and now he gets to dictate the rubric of terrorism is truly disturbing." | |||
| ::I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. ] (]) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :My situation is totally different to @]. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @] adjusting the page '''to favour her client''' (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. ] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the ] article ]. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per ]. | |||
| ::Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding ]- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this. | |||
| ::Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. ] (]) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. ] (]) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile === | |||
| * '''FOTG's wild deletion of every Jew/Israel incident under false summaries''', and then refusing to concede after I copied and pasted the references that explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. It was a gross abuse of editing privileges and to target all things Jewish is doubly offensive. | |||
| <s>Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. {{Noping|EMsmile}} is a paid editor who violated ] - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight ''are highly disruptive'' - and that's notwithstanding the ''paid editing.'' Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. </s> Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. ] (]) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This is all totally irrelevant is avoiding the true fact that FOTG viciously and obsessively edited out ALL incidents on Israel and Jews with the same basic summary, 5 of which have proven to be false. The fact that he totally wiped out incidents because a source was dead instead of simply finding a new one proves this has little to do with terrorism and everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel. | |||
| :'''<s>Oppose block, support ]ing EMS for almost ], ]ing AJL for aggressive interactions</s>, warning ITK for ].'''- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy. | |||
| * It is offensive that you targeted strictly Jewish-related incidents. | |||
| :the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically ] suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group ] (]) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::From ] {{tq|WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages}} - this seems not to be the case here. ] (]) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias. | |||
| :::want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi applies] (]) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by ] - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. ] (]) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. {{U|Bluethricecreamman}} has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether {{U|EMsmile}} was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see ] apologize for the ] that occurred. ] (]) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. ] (]) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Strong oppose''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in ''simple ignorance'' (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not ]). | |||
| ::That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, '''it fails a DUCK test''', and ''looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor''. What I see is a properly disclosed ] editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. ''These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors.'' Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't ] going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :] ] 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: <small>((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above)</small> 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, ''otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month'', 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that ''AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI.'' They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including ''very questionable'' off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where ] was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT ''recent'' contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a '''grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI''' (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month ''for over 11 years'')... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either ] or ]. ] ] 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe everyone gets ]s at this point and we move on? ] (]) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats. | |||
| :::::However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for '''potential civil-POV'' which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like might come off is overly whitewashing, but {{tq|China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations.}} but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does <u>call into need for a closer look</u>, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. ] ] 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group | |||
| ::mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. ] (]) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strong support'''. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, ] applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that ] only ''strongly discourages'' paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --] (]) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose and IMO unthinkable''' They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV | |||
| *:{{tq|made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit}}: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.<br>I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. ] (] · ]) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Personally, I am much more concerned about '''un'''declared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet ] . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. ] (]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I meant meat puppet. ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Tentative oppose''' - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates''' with no opinion on indef block at this time. | |||
| From what I can see, looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the ]: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages". More broadly, we have a movement-wide (emphasis in the original). | |||
| * Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. | |||
| Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination: | |||
| * August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client. All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA. | |||
| * Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary. | |||
| * Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted. Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with ] , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of ]. | |||
| When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks." I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil. | |||
| EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "{{tq|And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Misplaced Pages now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Misplaced Pages editing policies.}}." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "{{tq|That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page.}}" Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Misplaced Pages to advocate for your client. | |||
| * FOTG aim was to remove everything Israel and Jewish, he doesn't give less of a #$#$@ about the terrorist rubric. Don't be an apologist for such a hateful user. | |||
| It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * What FOTG has does defies logic | |||
| I looked at ] last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics '''written 73% of the article''', in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing. | |||
| * The discussion began because an obvious vandal decided to remove cited information and force a dispute. | |||
| <small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small> | |||
| * So edit-warring out everything Jewish and Israel is totally cool and does not warrant administrator intervention. I guess antisemitism is protected then, sweet. | |||
| ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Misplaced Pages but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Misplaced Pages as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Misplaced Pages to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Misplaced Pages. The opportunity is to improve Misplaced Pages articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction. | |||
| ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. | |||
| :Hello ], we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of ]. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (] (which is an alliance), nor the concept ] itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website. | |||
| * Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality | |||
| :FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: ] and ], then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course). | |||
| :FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project. | |||
| :If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for ] apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from ]? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life? | |||
| :Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements. | |||
| :Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks ''in this thread'' but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." ] (]) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't ] or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are ], which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.{{pb}}Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact , which states that {{tq|he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community.}} This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". ] (] · ]) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to ], or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. ] (]) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::did report to ] ] (]) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they ''do'' make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we ''do'' allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. ''edits'' that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] put this back into our court. ] (]) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. ] (]) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile === | |||
| * It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda. | |||
| <small>I added this heading just now to break up a section that was getting long ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC) </small> | |||
| :::<small> The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.</small>True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its <s>direct</s> affiliates, broadly construed. This ''obviously'' include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from ''citing'' the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :another one on this noticeboard - "certified troll" ](]) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)? | |||
| :::: | |||
| ::::By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on ] (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week). | |||
| ::::] is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-) | |||
| ::::I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those ''grey areas'' while editing the ] article as mentioned above by ]. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the ] article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged"). | |||
| ::::Oh and should the ] where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). ] (]) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For the topic ban, you can add it to ]. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about ]. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being {{tq|a pioneer in opposing SRM research}} is sourced... to ETC Group itself). ] (] · ]) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a ]. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not. | |||
| ::::::For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. ] (]) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at ] violated ] quite egregiously. Do you disagree? | |||
| :::::::Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I ''tried to'' make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive. | |||
| ::::::::Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive." | |||
| ::::::::I believe my edits for the ] article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. ] (]) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page ''on the topic of ESG and its affiliates''. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a ''symptom'' of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like at SRM and at ] (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive. | |||
| :IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Both blocked for a week === | |||
| :<small>(involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before)</small>. To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. ] (]) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I invite uninvolved admin review, but I have just blocked both Wikifan12345 and Factsontheground for 1 week. The specific issues are: | |||
| ::Hi Femke, I've modified the ] article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion. | |||
| :* Mutual stalking and harrassment on multiple wiki pages | |||
| ::I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the ] article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the ] article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page ]. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) ] (]) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Disruption on ANI | |||
| :::We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a ] or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like ]. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction. | |||
| :* Both accounts are ] | |||
| :::At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a ] to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Miscellaneous incivility | |||
| * '''Support'''. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for ]" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be '''extended to future employers''' too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not propose to include diffs; the thread above and the article talk pages referenced stand full of examples. | |||
| * '''Support''' per Femke. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would like to request independent review on 2 separate points: | |||
| * '''Support''' and will withdraw my proposal above. ] (]) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :# Is the current block of each party appropriate. | |||
| *'''Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed''' <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :# Is the indefinite block penalty for disruptive SPAs appropriate, i.e. should we community ban these two at this point. | |||
| : |
*:They are confirmed (below). <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support''' per Femke. also this discussion has gone too long and is nearly 0.5 ]s long. We should end it somehow, and some kinda editting restriction is warranted at this point. ] (]) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. ] (] · ]) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure I understand why parity was applied to the sanctions here. I don't see parity in the community's complaints and levels of frustration with these two users. I also believe that someone other than Georgewilliamherbert should have done the blocking. George forshadowed FOTG's himself during this very . Don't get me wrong sanctions should have been applied to both of them (perhaps not blocks of equal lengths of time), but they should have been applied by someone else.] (]) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support as proposer''' and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Admins are not supposed to gain advantage in a content dispute by admin actions - I am opposed to one of Factsontheground's policy positions on the one article this is focused around, but I have left multiple behavioral warnings for Wikifan12345. I commented on the policy dispute as an uninvolved admin and have not taken any admin or content actions on the article, and won't now. | |||
| *'''Support''' While I do believe that EMS has made some positive contributions, they have also made some egregious errors. If this was not a situation of PE or COI, then at most we'd probably consider a voluntary ban, but given the PE/COI concerns, once you've lost the trust of the community, it is going to be extremely difficult to overcome that cloud. When doing PE/COI work one must be extremely carefully not to make any questionable or promotional edits, they must be 100% defendable, and what we've seen here is that there are multiple instances where that is absolutely not the case. It is a difficult choice because there is a mountain on good work, lots of history and many examples of following procedures and presuming good faith. As I mentioned early on, this might be a case of sealioning, where we've got a civil contributor who is still pushing for a specific POV. These are always difficult. But in looking back at specific edits, and even by EMS own admission, that mistakes were made, and the threshold for when we loose trust and faith in a PE has been exceeded. And while I'd hate to mess with someones livelihood and income, it does not appear that is EMS' primary income, and thus I think that it is appropriate that this ban also extend to any other PE works now and in the future. ] ] 16:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Having been tangled up in trying to unwrap a multiparty dispute does not disqualify one from blocking party or parties to that dispute... Often, admins have to get somewhat involved to try and untangle incidents. That doesn't mean that we can't issue warnings or block once we start to get involved. If it is a content issue, or someone we have a personal disagreement with, we should stand aside for more uninvolved admins, but neither of those is in play here. ] (]) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'll be honest that without the COI element I'd not be seeking any sort of sanction bigger than a trout. However I take the COI part very seriously and that's the locus of my concerns. ] (]) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Following up PelleSmith's note about my comment above ( ) more specifically - yes, I stood back from the behavioral issues over the weekend, because I had been involved in a content issue on a page with these two users. But there's a difference between "attempting to find a policy resolution for a content issue" and "trying to change content / edit a page with content specific point of view". Admins involved in the first don't have to recuse from admin enforcement - admins involved in the second have at least the apparent conflict of interest between neutrality and their content issues. I have not ever edited the article in question or related articles, and in the underlying issue (Israeli - Palestinean on-wiki conflicts) I remain an equal opportunity policy enforcer. | |||
| *::Agreed! ] ] 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's fair to ask about this - And I'm open to input if other admins strongly object - but I do not believe that I violated policy. Wikifan12345 is behaviorally a worse offender here and at least marginally worse on the article page. Both sides are clearly harrassing each other way in excess of policy, now. Factsontheground has been better at staying lower profile and more civil but has also poked in and provoked some responses; we have a more active interpretation of baiting behavior than we used to, and I believe that some of his actions fall under that. | |||
| *::(I'm going to use the COI term with the meaning which I think you intended....IMO the Wiki-meanings are too broad and variable). IMO the golden rule (which IMO was mistakenly taken out of the COI guideline) is (paraphrasing) that where influence from the COI connection overrides the duty to edit properly in the interests/objectives of Misplaced Pages, you have an (in practice) COI. And the policy says that in the highest-risk condition (PE) they are strongly discouraged (not forbidden) from editing directly. IMO good practice in relation to this is that edits where there is '''''any''''' COI type question about the edit that they should request somebody else to put it in. While I haven't taken a deep dive on their edits, from looking at the ones presented to make the case that they are problematic, I see only minor violations of that "good practice" and no explicit violations of policy. Another consideration in my mind is that IMO '''''undisclosed''''' paid editing is a huge problem in Misplaced Pages and IMO Misplaced Pages being overly rough on '''''disclosed''''' paid editing contributes to that "undisclosed" problem. Finally, the described voluntary restrictions if adhered to (and with them as a 60k editor with only a tiny fraction of their edits being PE, I expect would happen) would remove all question for a year and then be just normal practices (and all of that inevitably under a magnifying glass, with the obvious option of coming back here if needed) IMO would solve it. Which is why I suggest (only) the voluntary restrictions at this time Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps there's less than perfect symmetry to the provocations; if anyone wants to discuss reductions from the equal blocks, and believes that one side is significantly less at fault, feel free to propose it here. ] (]) 04:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just to be clear I am not saying you violated policy. I simply think after making the comment I linked to above you should have stepped back. It also looks like your block only accounts for their incivility towards one another on the talk page of the entry you involved yourself in and not the volumes of text about Wikifan produced once discussion started. You could have blocked them both prior to this discussion for been incivil to one another on the talk page and spared us all this discussion. But now that we've spent days discussing Wikifan's history of problems, and several editors are calling for much harsher remedies this doesn't seem like a very appropriate solution anymore. That's just my opinion.] (]) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As another user who has had problems with Wikifan, I would note that a fair number of administrators who have problems with him were once 'uninvolved administrators'. For example, Rd232 replied on ] as an uninvolved admin and another uninvolved mediator was chased off by Wikifan. As with most of Wikifan's editing, the article went through an RfC, noticeboards, a third opinion, and an informal mediation. The result was a deadlock with Wikifan dissenting. How many uninvolved administrators does it take, and what happens when there simply aren't any left? Why does he have a problem with so many editors, let alone administrators? | |||
| :::::In the interest of disclosure, I have interacted with Wikifan before, so my opinion may be completely tarnished.--] (]) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * My one interaction with Wikifan indicated that he had problems at working collegially. I'd say that his block should be longer than FOTGs here purely for the volume and quantity of incivility, but others may disagree (and no doubt will). I would suggest unblocking FOTG at this point; however I am not going to do it myself as I am going on holiday now and it wouldn't be the best idea to reverse another admin's block and then run away. <b>]</b> 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Voluntary restrictions=== | |||
| i have avoided adding my two cents here, but seeing the repeated personal attacks by wikifan on this noticeboard (with no provocation or response in kind by fotg) forced my hand. when i saw that he called fotg a "certified troll" and no one batted an eye, i looked at the article talk page in question. not only did i not see more incivility by wikifan, i noted that fotg backed out of that conversation early on. unless the blocking admin provides diffs of fotg's offenses, i agree that he should be unblocked. <br /> | |||
| {{Ping|EMsmile}} Just clarifying | |||
| as for wikifan, his baiting, personal attacks, and tendentious wikilawyering were unacceptable. as a shining example, view posted ''while this ani was in progress,''where he responds to seanhoyland with drama-inducing hyperbole: "Whether you think the standard for terrorism is pioneer UAVs blowin up Taliban hideouts in West Pakistan or Jew Nazis blowin up Palestinians fetus's is of little relevance." sean wisely ignored it, but this editor should probably be topic banned at least if he cant keep his emotions under control. ](]) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force. | |||
| *Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits? | |||
| Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Is Wikifan12345 at or near the threshold for a community ban at this point? Does anyone feel that he or she would be productive in other areas with a topic ban on Israeli / Palestinean topics? ] (]) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::At or near? Well beyond, IMHO. However, a topicban from I/P issues would, given Wikifan's ...narrow... focus, essentially be a community ban anyway. That being said, it would give him a ''chance'' to redeem himself. I think we'd be on a hiding to nothing there, and the community would best be served by giving him a permanent invitation to the world, but people around here tend to prefer endless last chances. I guess basically a topicban would show whether this is a problem with Wikifan, or a problem with Wikifan+I/P. → ] ]<small> 19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::I would support a 6 month topic ban from Israel/Palestine related articles. I think Wikifan might be more amenable to collaboration on articles not so close to heart. ] (]) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Having looked at some of the diffs presented in this dispute, it's clear this was a conflict over a well-known point (for the fun of it, I typed in ], & guess what I found!) that spiraled out of control. I can understand why FOTG was removing the word, & why Wikifan was insisting on restoring it -- but "terrorist" is one of those words that should only be used in very clear situations: as part of a quotation, or only where all parties concerned have agreed on a clear definition of the word. But to do this all parties have to talk to each other, not at each other or past each other. If you can't talk to someone you disagree with (& is otherwise an editor in good standing) about an issue, then walk away from that issue for a while; if you can't walk away either, then you're taking those first steps towards getting banned from Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 19:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions: | |||
| *Although I agree with much of the foregoing, the policing and sanctions for breach of ] by individuals is inconsistent at best and unenforceable at worst. You sysops' inability to arrive at the same conclusion on two very similar cases (see ]) perpetuates the perceived problems in the system. ] (]) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :* To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree. | |||
| === Topic ban for ] === | |||
| :* The second point: Yes, the PE arrangement was to improve the ] article in several ways and in collaboration with others: one was just general improvements, structure, clarity, updated references, images, wikilinks and so forth. The other was to make the article more balanced because we felt that the current discourse about risks of SRM research was not very well described and relevant publications had not been cited. There was already a section on "criticism" when I started editing the article but as per ] it wasn't well done (in my opinion). I started discussing this on the talk page of the SRM article in May 2024. There were some page watchers who agreed, some who disagreed - which is normal. And yes, I agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in future. Could I clarify this small point: When you say "ask someone else to put in any edits" how would that work in practice? Would pinging someone on the talk page, e.g. you, be acceptable or would people find that annoying and "pushy"? ] (]) 08:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I propose that we enact the following, note on ] and enforce as a community ban: | |||
| :::P.S. regarding the point made by Femke above ("You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago."): the sentence in question on the in fact says (bolding added by me): "The Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance '''research community'''." This sentence actually means mainly to try to get accreditations at UN conferences for ESG-related scholars, who can then enter UN meetings as representatives of the ESG Foundation. It is not the representation of the “project”, which has no legal entity, no positions, no fixed income, etc. - I have made some changes to my user profile page too in order to explain it better. Hope this helps to clarify. ] (]) 12:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is prohibited from editing any article or article talk page related to Israel, the Palestinean territories, or nearby Arab countries, broadly construed, for the remainder of the 2009 calendar year. If violations occur any administrator may block immediately for a month, with escalating blocks for repeat offenses. | |||
| * Proposed. ] (]) 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support.''' <small>Community sanction.</small> ] (]) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', per my comments above and with a caveat. Namely that this will amount to a ''de facto'' community ban given his specific focus, but hopefully this will give him a chance to change. The caveat being if the same behaviour continues at non-I/P articles, this topicban be immediately changed to a permanent community ban that can be revisited in one year by appeal to ArbCom or its designate (if the Appeal Committee thing takes off). → ] ]<small> 03:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Question''' Would it be possible to amend the language to say something like "related to Israeli political interests broadly construed" or something else of that nature. I ask this because my own run-ins with this editor were at two entries related to the ] which I am not sure are directly covered by the above language. To Wikifan these entries do relate to the problem area of editing since he (and others) consider CAIR to be part of the "Anti-Israel lobby of the United States". If people think the existing language would cover entries such as these then that works for me. Thanks.] (]) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Anything related to Israel, includes Israeli political interests (and if they existed, Anti-Israeli articles). ] (])` | |||
| ***Thanks for the answer and for inserting "broadly construed". This seems like a fair remedy at this point.] (]) 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - ] (]) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This proposal, unfortunately, does not surprise me at all. Wikifan seems quite prone to make inappropriate slights about Arabs and accuse others of anti-semitism to support his points (e.g. , ,). Add the information from his ] and it's quite clear this area of Misplaced Pages would be better off without Wikifan's involvement. -- ''']''' 06:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Wikifan12345 has sometimes behaved clumsily, no doubt. However, note that there are editors with an anti-Israel agenda who try to insert the most outrageous tendentious things into articles. They are very careful to stay clear of the bounds of WP's silly civility rules but beaver away tirelessly with apparently limitless time on their hands. Then when an editor blows up at them they immediately run to an admin asking for sanctions to be imposed. Please keep this in mind also. --] (]) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **I know there are people who edit in this area with an agenda, but that's really not the issue at hand here. Wikifan is, regardless, responsible for his actions, but in basically all of the situations mentioned here, he wasn't even provoked. -- ''']''' 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Wikifan has much to learn about following the spirit and letter of WP policy, which he is much more likely to on less difficult subjects less close to his heart. If nothing else, it'll give him a chance to live up to his username. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've held my tongue (actually finger I guess) for too long. It's not really his edits that I'm particularly worried about, but the very uncivil talk page interactions he undertakes and his general behavior on Misplaced Pages, despite numerous warnings. I think only a topic ban could finally settle this issue which is constantly(and annoyingly) surfacing on this noticeboard. Maybe after its expiration, he will change his attitude here. However, I prefer the topic ban to be limited to I-P issues versus anything that has to do with Israel (he might be able to contribute positively there). --] (]) 08:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't think that would be helpful, shifting focus from I/P to Israel. In fact it would probably be better if he stayed away from political topics altogether, at least for a while, but that's up to him. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Alternative'''. I have read over the debate. Wikifan blew up pretty quickly. IMO editing Misplaced Pages is a privilege that anyone should be able to have, but if one can't treat others with respect and instead causes drama, granting that privilege is counterproductive to the primary task of creating an encyclopedia. I would support a topic ban, not of a year, but indefinitely, until Wikifan decides to behave civilly. I would then support any re-ban if after declaring he will behave civilly, Wikifan behaves in an obviously uncivil way. ] (]) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:If Wikifan shows that he can't play well with others on other topics, the topic ban should just become a general indef ban. The topic ban is his chance to learn and if it seems that he's learned, then it's fair he gets another chance. A simple declaration under duress is worth little. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::If you're saying that if he plays well with others, his year-long topic ban may be reviewed and removed, then it is close enough to what I'm thinking that I will support. As for the "simple declaration": yes, I am the optimist, but I understand. ] (]) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - battleground mentality. ] (]) 08:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - prying yet another warrior from the battlefield of the I-P topic area can only be a good thing. Let's see if he can find an area of interest to devote legitimate editing to. ] (]) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - everybody does realize that ''any'' uninvolved admin can impose this sanction, per ], right? This straw poll really is not needed. As somebody who has had heated arguments with Wikifan I wont comment on the proposal, but this (the poll) seems like a waste of time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :*Hi Nableezy, there's a possibility the scope of this ban is slightly wider than a ] topic ban, however I think you're probably right. Regardless, the result is essentially the same. After this ban is enacted, I'll put a note in the ] log . ] (]) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*No, Nableezy isn't quite right. The difference is this. When an individual admin imposes a sanction under ARBPIA, appeals can go to either an individual admin, AE or ArbCom. For the sanction imposed here, appeals can only go to the community (either here or WP:AN), or ArbCom (though they'd be expected to bring it back here anyway, in light of the fact this sanction was not imposed under the ArbCom remedy, despite its existence). Effectively, this sanction should be logged at ] - not at ARBPIA. ] (]) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I see. Thanks for the clarification. But an admin could impose the same restriction, but the appeal process would be different, right? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::::*Indeed. To clarify, even if it's the same sanction, this one would run concurrently to the one imposed under ARBPIA. That is, even if the appeal was accepted by the imposing admin who used ARBPIA, another appeal would need to be heard by the community before the effect of the restriction can be lifted. Does that make sense? ] (]) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*As much as anything else that happens here, thanks :) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Having decided that his behavior so far was unacceptable, we need to give Wikifan a chance to collaborate in an acceptable way. If you impose a topic ban right away for the rest of the year, then when it has expired, he won't have learned how to behave correctly (keep in mind that Wikifan is just 14 years old...). I think it would be far better to appoint a mentor who will watch over Wikifan's edits. Every time he violates, even in a very mild way, basic decency rules, he'll get strong warning. If the mentor concluced that Wikifan is not learning from these warnings, then a topic ban would be appropriate. ] (]) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::All we know is that he claims to be 14, but age should not be a factor here regardless. He was blocked for personal attacks and harassment soon after joining the project and once again about half a year later. I'm sure he's had numerous warnings along the road as well. He either knows the rules and is defying them, knows the rules and can't help himself, or sincerely has no idea he's doing anything wrong, in which case there is little hope. ''People who sincerely believe he can be reformed should work with him during his ban as informal mentors.'' That way, if they are right, he wont take his second chance for granted.] (]) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Count Iblis, would you like to be his mentor? :) ] (]) 16:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is there any reason not to AGF about the claimed age? If not, then the fact that he is so young is grounds for more optimism about him than some of the martyrs such as Malcolm Shosha and Jayjg he has recorded on his page. They were adults and should have known better. He is still at an age where people are learning about how to behave in society. Of course, one fo the first actions of a mentor will need to be to try to get him to understand why they, (let alone Tundrabuggy,) were not hard done by. If there is a mentor found then I think that the issue of a topic ban should be left in their hands. I would see learnign how to post to IP articles in a constructive way as part of what his being in mentorship would be about. Selective supervised posting to a small number of pages might be part of that.--] (]) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::That takes care of everything I asked about. I did a lot of work with perhaps wiki's most prominent PE (CorporateM) prominent because they had high visibility discussions all over the place on the whole idea and how to do it best/right. Maybe it's emblematic of the challenges that they are mostly gone now. Plus several others. Answering your question I know that there are lots of ways, (some are really backed up partly because most people don't know how to do a requested edit well) but what worked was just putting the requested edit on the article's talk page. Feel free to ping me there if you wish. The common mistake with requested edits to to not make it explicit. Say exactly what would be taken out and exactly what would be put in. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Both Malcolm Schoscha and Jayjg were in fact "hard done by". Gwen Gale was gunning for Malcolm with a vengeance and would not stop, despite admonitions from senior admins, until she could do the victory dance on his skull. The weak-willed Arbcom caved to a slur&innuendo campaign (on Misplaced Pages Review) against Jayjg. --] (]) 07:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::How about a temporary topic ban and a formal mentorship during this time to help him develop?--] (]) 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support, with disclaimer''' – I've been in a conflict dispute with this user; specifically, over the article ]. He seemed to adopt a battleground mentality in discussion, and was fiercely defensive of the content he was trying to insert. He had an obvious intention to push a view, and the article has been problematic ever since. This behavior is apparently part of a pattern. —<strong>]</strong>] 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Ban sounds reasonable. For those saying "no, wait, let's mentor", this suggestion doesn't make much sense. If someone wants to mentor, sure, they can go right ahead, but this needs to be done ''concurrent'' with a topic ban, not ''instead'' of a topic ban. We're primarily a project to write an encyclopedia, not a project to teach children to write an encyclopedia. Teaching is nice but content comes first. ] ] 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **As usual, Friday is the hammer hitting the nail on the head. → ] ]<small> 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza == | |||
| *'''Comment''' per nableezy. Is this really a vote? Very peculiar here how so many editors with opposing views of WF125 have showed up to annihilate him. Was this discussion published somewhere or canvassing done to verify his destruction? --] (]) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}} | |||
| :Yes, a cabal! Or perhaps he has been disruptive to a larger segment of the community for an extended period of time across multiple noticeboards?--] (]) 04:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}} | |||
| *'''Support'''. Clearly suffers from a battleground mentality; it would be better all round if he was given an involuntary "leave of absence" from this topic area. -- ] (]) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} | |||
| {{u|Religião, Política e Futebol}} and {{u|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} have both been edit warring at ] over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration. | |||
| *'''Note''' - This discussion has reached the mandated 48 hr time period, any uninvolved admin can now review and close, taking both the comments here and the transcluded section below into account, etc. We aren't mandated to close immediately after 48 hrs or anything, if people feel more discussion will help feel free to leave it open for now. ] (]) 03:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''...I agree with Editor:Friday but have a slightly different take than Editor:Roux. To me, WF125 is the Hammer and the rest of us are the nails. Until he rethinks his purpose here, WF125 will continue to look for opportunities to strike. A leave of absence is necessary.--] (]) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. ] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Alternative proposal=== | |||
| :Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (Something went wrong when I posted this below, it now appears on wikifans talk page, but not here, so I'm posting this again here.) | |||
| ::I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. ] (]) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. ] (]) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at ], not here. ] (]) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Sundayclose}} Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says, {{tq|This complaint is not about the content directly}}. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. ] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. ] (]) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *There have been numerous edits to the ] article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits. | |||
| *Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of '''information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family'''. | |||
| **The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP {{u|94.63.205.236}}. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs: | |||
| **{{ping|Sundayclose}} Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant. | |||
| **During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, {{u|74.12.250.57}}, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, {{u|2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803}}, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"): | |||
| **The article was then confirmed-protected for two days. | |||
| **On 10 January, {{ping|Religião, Política e Futebol}} made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits: | |||
| **Another IP, {{u|2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40}}, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff: | |||
| **On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff: | |||
| **On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff: | |||
| **Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff: | |||
| **On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff: | |||
| **Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff: | |||
| **I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection. | |||
| *In regards to '''the mention of Baena's suicide''', this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January. | |||
| **{{ping|DiaMali}} did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff: | |||
| **Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , , | |||
| **The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when {{ping|Ibeaa}} removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff: | |||
| **On 7 January, IP {{u|2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196}} adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff: | |||
| **The next user to re-add the info was {{ping|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff: | |||
| **The IP {{u|2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8}} removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff: | |||
| **{{ping|Sundayclose}} reverted the IP on the same day. Diff: | |||
| **Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff: | |||
| **Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing {{tq|committed suicide}} for the first time in this edit, which IP {{u|50.71.82.63}} fixed. Diff: | |||
| **Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information ''five times each'', no edit reasons in sight. | |||
| ***Zander: (above 1), , , , | |||
| ***Ibeaa: , , , , | |||
| **I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff: | |||
| **Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff: | |||
| **On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff: | |||
| **Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff: | |||
| **Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff: | |||
| **Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is {{tq|accurate and properly sourced}}. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the ] article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff: | |||
| **Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff: | |||
| **Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. ]. | |||
| ***I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time. | |||
| **After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff: | |||
| **I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection. | |||
| **Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem {{tq|vital enough}} to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff: | |||
| *] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Why not let Wikifan edit the articles on Israel/Palestine on one day of the week only? This will cause him to make edits that he thinks will stick without him being around to "protect" his edits. So, edit warring, being uncivil etc. etc. would be pointless and counterproductive. The days he can post on would be some fixed day chosen by wikifan, say, Saturday and the times are fixed in a 24 hour interval. ] (]) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Creative. And then he would be able to sandbox all he wanted in his userspace, right? I'm not sure what he'd think of it though. ] (]) 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a lot of data. But it seems like if edit-warring is the problem, a complaint filed at ] or a request for page protection at ] would be more suitable than ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to ''acknowledge'' the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. ] (]) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given there's basically nothing on the talk page about any of this, I'd say some full-protection (or pblocks on the editors in question) for a short time may be in order. People ''need'' to discuss this on the article's talk page rather than just trying to shoehorn it into the article, and we may have to force the matter. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would have to agree, the most we've got from the users I am concerned about is one who thinks they're above discussion, and one who thinks they're above explanation. The other user involved who was already blocked at least showed some awareness. ] (]) 22:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 == | |||
| ==== Comment section from Talk:Wikifan12345 ==== | |||
| *{{userlinks|Manannan67}} | |||
| This section is set up to allow Wikifan12345 to comment on the ANI discussion while blocked, per his request, and is transcluded from a subsection of his user talk page. ] (]) 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ), | |||
| {{User talk:Wikifan12345#Transclude to ANI}} | |||
| most recently , when I discovered a they placed on . The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did one early warning from the talk page. ] (]) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to ] which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. ] (]) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To answer several of those questions: the ban phrasing clearly says until the end of 2009. It is temporary and the idea is that working on other topics you'll learn to respect WP policy (] more than ], but the spirit and meaning of other policies such as ] too) and fellow editors - as I wrote in my endorsement. Your response (continuing to attack one editor, and missing such key points) does little to inspire confidence. Incidentally, you ask "Are there not more appropriate and honest boards..." - yes and no. WP/ANI does this all the time. But a ] provides a better basis for a structured discussion of a user's behaviour, but when FOTG started one (I'd suggested it too), it failed to get an endorsement within 48 hours (possibly a stupid rule, but there it is), partly I guess because he didn't announce it here, or possibly because by then this ANI thread had evolved beyond that. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to ]. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. ] (]) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." ] (]) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. ] (]) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, the information you added to the article, which had to be revdeled as a clear copyright violation, is something you're now claiming you have no recollection of? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Since it's been removed, I don't know what is in dispute. ] (]) 06:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The "dispute", {{u|Manannan67}}, is whether or not you understand the legal severity of copyright violations, and whether or not you will make a firm commitment to refrain from copyright violations in the future. ] (]) 07:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I looked at their most recent addition of significant addition prose to article space this material to the article ], made last November after he first five warnings: | |||
| :::*{{tq|'''it seems that''' he '''traveled to different towns where there were centres of his Order with the intention of gathering information for his great work'''}} | |||
| :::**Source:{{tq|'''It seems that''' the Cerratense '''travelled to different towns where there were centres of his Order with the intention of gathering information to write his great work'''}} | |||
| :::*{{tq|It was intended to '''facilitate the preparation of sermons for preachers'''}} | |||
| :::**Source:{{tq| attempting to create a hagiographic repertoire that would '''facilitate the preparation of sermons for preachers'''}} | |||
| :::*{{tq|'''In 1259 he lived in Segovia and in 1272 in Caleruega, where Domingo de Guzmán was originally from, probably researching to write the life of the holy founder.'''}} | |||
| :::**Source:{{tq|'''In 1259 he lived in Segovia and in 1272 in Caleruega, where Domingo de Guzmán was originally from, probably researching to write the life of the holy founder'''}} | |||
| :::This is very obvious plagiarism of a non-free source. The fact that they, an editor with 16k+ edits, insist on viewing the inclusion of non-free external material as a dispute or sourcing issue is troubling. Could an admin please consider indefinitely blocking them from the article and draft namespaces until they understand the issues with their edits? ] (]) 07:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) == | |||
| == DanaUllman == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Cherkash}} | |||
| * Courtesy link to recent discussion: ] | |||
| The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see ], ]). </br> | |||
| {{user|DanaUllman}} is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (]) | |||
| The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the ] pages and even had raised the issue here , with no visible actions following. | |||
| I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his ] behaviour very well, where he'll accept something one moment, then bring it up as if evidence hadn't been provided to refute it shortly thereafter. | |||
| Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg | |||
| On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections: | |||
| They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| From http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html | |||
| Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: , | |||
| {{cquote|Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes | |||
| The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ]. | |||
| Andrew Vickers1, Claire Smith2 | |||
| I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content. | |||
| 1Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2Weston Education Centre, King’s | |||
| ] (]) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| College, London, UK | |||
| :Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? ] (]) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the ], e.g. about normalising ], and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in ]. | |||
| ::I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via ''de facto'' statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often ], which I cannot even comment on. ] (]) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is a link to the last time this was raised here. | |||
| :::The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine). | |||
| :::I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that {{User|Unas964}} should adhere to ] while {{user|Cherkash}} needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.] (]) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? ] (]) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith ] (]) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note that I believe the IP editor above mistakenly posted in this section instead of at .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. ] (]) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Out}}UN Resolutions are not Misplaced Pages guidelines. They're not even binding for the countries involved, let alone Misplaced Pages. UN Resolutions do not recognize Taiwan nor Israeli current borders, yet we recognize their independence and their ''de facto'' territories in out articles. ''De jure'', there's no Taiwan, and Israel is still at war with Iraq since 1947. ''De jure'', the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Do we care? Misplaced Pages focuses on facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world, not bound by temporary laws made by temporary entities which often don't even recognize each other: according to Bhutan, ''de jure'' there's no Croatia; according to Greece, there's no Northern Cyprus; according to Serbia, there's no Kosovo; according to the UN, there's no Taiwan... should we follow them? Of course not. You're free to be pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, as long as you stick to facts. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. ] (]) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Contact address: Andrew Vickers, Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New | |||
| ::{{re|Simonm223}} Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their ''de facto'' state. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| York, NY, 10021, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org. (Editorial group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group.) | |||
| :::Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a ''fact'' that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a ''fact'' that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes. | |||
| :::Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map. | |||
| :::As a corollary it is ''in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals'' to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @] - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @] has seriously failed to ] by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. ] (]) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Simonm223}} I '''don't''' {{tq|have the terms backward there}}. I literally stated that {{tq|''De jure'', there's no Taiwan}}, and also what I meant for {{tq|facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world}}. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires ]. // and no, '''it is not''' {{tq|a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine}}, as ''de jure'' {{tq|the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union}}, as I had already wrote, because ''de jure'' the ] didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had ''de facto''. Do better. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. ] (]) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and ]. In theory, that does not align with ], since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the ] the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. ] (]) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is fast reaching ] territory. ] (]) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We also have ]. ] (]) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. ). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the ], ], ] and ] by some ''de facto laws''. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only ], ] and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. ]). That renders ''de facto maps'' a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality. | |||
| :Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of ] and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. ] (]) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|''de facto laws''}}? You're way too confused. {{langnf|la|de jure|by (some country's) law}} is the total opposite of {{langnf|la|de facto|by facts, in reality}}. That's the point. Nice list of stuff tho. Have fun. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, ]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (],] etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some ''consensus'' or ''de facto bodrers'' pretexts, then indeed it has no sense. | |||
| *:If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. ] (]) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I'm a bit concerned that {{U|Unas964}} has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes , regarding ] "pro-Russian attacks." at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a ] mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to ] was reverted with an edit summary of - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. ] (]) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. ] (]) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::When you hold an opinion, and all you get when you express that opinion is {{tqq|multiplying warnings and threats...no support either}}, a wise man at least considers the possibility that the one in the wrong might just, in fact, be himself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal - short duration block for Unas964=== | |||
| Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2009 <big>'''(Status in this issue: Withdrawn)'''</big> | |||
| I am not going to ask for an indef here as I don't really want to bite the newbie but this has gone on for long enough. Unas964 is very aware that extended confirmed status is required to edit on the Russia / Ukraine conflict and yet continues not only to do so, but to do so in a way that is highly confrontational, completely fails to ] and that is replete with ] violations. They have a severe ] mentality and hasten to accuse anyone who attempts to ''help them understand'' concepts such as ] of being Putinists. I think it's high time that they are demonstrated that such behaviour will have a consequence. A tban is inappropriate because this editor already should not be editing in this CTOP. So that really only leaves us with a block to get their attention and to hopefully stem this disruptive behaviour. ] (]) 18:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. | |||
| :'''Support''' I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. ] (]) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Your proposal only enhances the pro-Russian stance and if enforced will serve as evidence that the Ukrainian (and according to the International Law) point of view is censored on Misplaced Pages, also making a precedent against ]. This is harmful for the entire community that might thus be considered as anti-Ukrainian in general. ] (]) 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh do stop. I've been trying to be ''nice'' to you and all you've done in response is insult me repeatedly. This isn't twitter. Stop acting like it is. ] (]) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''support indef''' per the doubling down above of the ]. ] (]) 09:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've gone ahead and indef'd. The editor - who has been around since 2019 - has apparently made all of ''one'' edit outside of this very narrow topic, and while they haven't made any articlespace edits since receiving the contentious-topic warning, their behavior in this discussion, and their talk page edits, make it clear that they are ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Caste-based disruption == | |||
| DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4 | |||
| {{u|HistorianAlferedo}} has engaged in contentious ] style editing in the ] related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in ] POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as ] (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits: | |||
| This version first published online: 8 July 2009 in Issue 3, 2009. | |||
| *, , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses | |||
| *: clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject) | |||
| *, , , , : POV caste-based insertions | |||
| *, : POV caste-based removals | |||
| This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a ] t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking , ). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: . ] (]) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Last assessed as up-to-date: 19 May 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained) | |||
| :], you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} ] (]) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually i was only editing and adding new information along with genuine citations. I had no motive for any sort of vandalism or anything else. Based on the knowledge about various topics of Indian history i was just trying to contribute in a positive way. Moreover some of the allegations by user Gotitbro are totally irrelevant, i’m not an indian but interested in the topics related to Indian history. New editors should be supported by the old ones and not demotivated with false allegations. Alright, if the old editors don’t want the new ones to contribute to[REDACTED] even in a good way then i’ll definitely even delete my account from wikipedia. Thank you ] (]) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay @]. Please have a look at pages: ] and ] I added relevant information along with scholarly work sources but user:@] just reverted all the changes without even looking at the correct citations. That’s why i thought now i won’t edit and visit[REDACTED] as few users here just try to show off their ranks, there are good wikipedians and administrators too but a few of them are doing this with the new contributors. Thank you ] (]) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by ] == | |||
| This record should be cited as: Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza | |||
| and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: | |||
| 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4. | |||
| I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI. | |||
| <big>'''The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.'''</big><br /> | |||
| <big>'''REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL'''</big><br /> | |||
| <big>'''This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009 as the authors are currently unable to update it.'''</big><br /> | |||
| }} | |||
| To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of. | |||
| It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| :::While it was withdrawn, it has not been disproven, nor was it withdrawn because of an inability to reproduce the results, nor because another paper debunked it. It was withdrawn because it couldn't be modified as time went on. I see no reason why this is not still a perfectly legitimate study, aside from the fact that it doesn't go against homeopathy and any excuse is an excuse to exclude it. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Both me and SerChevalerie were part of this WhatsApp group of Wikipedians from ]. Having known each other online for over two years, and we shared the same native state. The problems arrived when he got back active on Misplaced Pages after a break of roughly 4 years and went on serious stalking my edits, the page I contributed, but mainly the pages that I created. As am In ] and I love creating articles, but this was something he went overly critical on. | |||
| On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments: | |||
| From June to August 2024, most of the edits SerChevalerie made were pertaining to the articles that I significantly worked on or created. During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]. It was until I finally took the decision to take it to ] we reached a consensus after several days of discussion. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Over the course of some 30 articles that I created from June to August 2024, SerChevalerie has made edits which often times were seen as annoying and major stalking behaviour. He also likes to stay at the "top of the order" constantly as you can on articles such as ] as per his latest "copyedit". During this period of two months almost entirely of his edits he has made were only pertaining to my articles. | |||
| We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website<ref>http://search.cochrane.org/search?q=homeopathy+Oscillococcinum&restrict=cochrane_org&scso_colloquia_abstracts=colloquia_abstracts&client=my_collection&scso_evidence_aid=evidence_aid&scso_review_abstracts=Cochrane_reviews&lr=&output=xml_no_dtd&sub_site_name=Cochrane.org_search&filter=0&site=my_collection&ie=&oe=&scso_registered_titles=registered_titles&scso_newsletters=newsletters&scso_cochrane_org=whole_site&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cochrane.org%2Fsearch%2Fgoogle_mini_xsl%2Fcochrane_org.xsl</ref> Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| When I had nominated his article ] for SD, he then tried to solicit and I felt harrassed after he took his arguments to ]. Even after saying I don't want to discus this off-wiki he forced it upon me by confronting me in a group of 200-250 Wikipedians and having his arguments posted there. This is the same whatsapp group we were part of. And I have the relevant evidence with me. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly ] and a suspected COI paid editing on article like ]. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see | |||
| And then today he posts: | |||
| He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here {{redacted}}. I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years. | |||
| When I had to quit Misplaced Pages for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Misplaced Pages as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November this made me realise that SerChevalerie might have ] relating to my presence on Misplaced Pages itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article ]. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See . Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD001957_standard.pdf -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| I still feel constantly watched by this editor everytime I am on Misplaced Pages. I want to propose to the community for a block on SerChevalerie or having placed ] on articles that I create so that he stops this behaviour. He also knows my real name and I don't want to get ] or ] by him as we both are from ], India. I'm afraid he might just get my residence address and does any harm. I just want to get rid of this issue and move on. ]<sup>2003</sup>(]) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists. | |||
| :I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented. | |||
| DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and ]. Further examples, perhaps requiring more quoting, can be found on ], of him refusing to get a point, or trying to twist words into a concession that he can do whatever he wants. | |||
| :{{Blockquote|"During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had {{Diff|Tsumyoki|1240530309}} as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]."}} | |||
| :In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed. | |||
| :If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided ]. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments. | |||
| :I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to ], but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. ] (]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. ] 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ]: ] and ] behaviour. == | |||
| Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: ] is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999: | |||
| Toa Nidhiki05 has been guarding the hell out of the ]. They instantly revert any change against the status quo that they don't like, citing a need for consensus, then don't actually engage with discussions around those edits except to call for moratoriums on even talking about them while spewing bad faith assumptions, or trying to wikilawyer away disagreements. I'm not a long term editor at ] and, frankly, don't want to be, but in the limited number of days I've been editing on this it's clearly an issue. | |||
| :"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis . Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. ) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy ), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." | |||
| Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration. | |||
| Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: . | |||
| Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour. | |||
| (The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value) | |||
| I would ask that he be community indef banned. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like. | |||
| * I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --] (]) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| More specifically this line: | |||
| * '''Endorse indef ban''' as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all ]-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review ] and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --] (]) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{tq|Rather than persuade editors, it seems editors are attempting to force these changes through.}} (right below an entire thread that was made before a controversial change specifically to discuss said change) | |||
| * '''Temporary action and note'''. Under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, I am imposing a two-week ban from the homeopathy topic area across all namespaces, broadly construed, including userspace and user talk pages. This should not be construed to prohibit Dana Ullman from responding to conduct reports and complaints regarding him. Additionally, I have advised Shoemaker's Holiday about short-term repeated complaints about the same issue (the last ANI closed barely a week ago) and about his failure to inform Dana Ullman of either thread. The apparent battlefield mentality on both sides is highly disruptive to the project. The topic ban is meant to be a temporary measure, thus its short duration. If Dana Ullman cannot accept the problematic nature of his approach and/or is unwilling to focus on other areas where he does not get carried away, I regretfully endorse a community ban. I would consider this his last chance to reconsider and reflect on his conduct. I do not expect endless last chances to be extended, as we have seen so many other times (including for this editor). If necessary, I will utilize the discretionary sanctions to impose the maximum one year block in order to prevent further disruption to the wiki. --] (]) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * As far as my current understanding goes, this is a substantially different situation from the previous one involving the word "retraction". Take the following with a grain of salt because I am simply repeating what came out in the discussion on the homeopathy talk page and have not tried to confirm it independently (I'm a bit handicapped by traveling): The old case was about the authors of a study later saying that the study was probably wrong. Whether they used the word "retract" or not, that's clearly a valid reason not to use the study. The present case is about a study that appeared in the "Cochrane library". Apparently this is a repository for up-to-date, high-quality medical studies. If the authors are unable to publish a new version of their study every X years, then it is removed from the library. This is what happened here. The authors "withdrew" the study because they cannot keep up with the literature. This is something that would not have happened if the study had simply been published in a prestigious journal of the normal kind. Note the wording "Status in '''this issue''': Withdrawn" etc. | |||
| I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("{{tq|or called for a moratorium on changes}}") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content ({{tq|Only one active discussion-engaged user}}). Other editors, like @], have been calling them out for this as well. | |||
| : The lead of ] currently claims that (not: almost all of) the few positive findings of effects beyond placebo have not been replicated. If I understand things correctly that's not technically true because the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that ''one'' of the positive findings ''is'' replicable. In my opinion the relevant language in the lead is still OK. That's because I am generally fine with little white lies in the lead, so long as they are explained further down. But here Dana's opponents insist on both leaving the lead as it is and not even mentioning the caveat in the body. That's at least borderline disingenuous, and it seems odd to take Dana's ineffective attempts to get the situation changed as a reason for a ban. | |||
| Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too. | |||
| : If you want to ban Dana because he is an undiplomatic, ineffective advocate of homeopathy who, instead of causing the changes to the article that he desires, merely brings out the worst in his opponents, then by all means do so. But don't pretend it's for a different reason that makes no sense. ] ] 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There's a content dispute under-riding most of this, which frankly is probably best adjudicated at this point by literally anyone other than Toa or myself. The meat of this ANI is wholly independent of the content dispute, except insofar as Toa's apparently not been engaging in the most NPOV way with editors when it comes to sourcing requirements. I want to point out that despite Toa's reality-bending insistence I've been pretty open to admitting a different proposal for a change from others was better than my own idea. In an attempt to placate his revert-happy self on what I was sure would be controversial (removing 'conservative' from the dominant ideology of the party) I started by making a discussion thread highlighting that the sources that were being used didn't make that claim, including direct quotes from the papers. Except for admonishing editors for wanting change, he's mostly elected to just straight up ignore any substantive discussion over the exact thing he's reverting. This is clearly OWN and POV editing, and it looks like previous attempts to caution him for edit warring were met with ''. I'd honestly like to bow out of editing that page entirely for a while for ''so'' many reasons, but I don't want to leave it in a state where one editor has declared an article theirs. | |||
| * (ec)To be explicit, my imposition of the ban is simply based on recurring patterns. It is not based on any particular argument about content violations or related concerns. The plain fact of the matter is that DanaUllman's current mode of interaction, including misrepresentation and statements ignoring ignoring valid discussion points (popularly referred to as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), is the same scheme of conduct that lead to previous sanctions. I am saddened that he is returning to these old patterns, as his expertise and topic knowledge could be valuable. However, in order for that value to be realized, he needs to accept the impact of his conduct and make a serious course correction. --] (]) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Maybe ] could be more specific. Please tell us what we should avoid in the discussion - exactly. Which behavior is disruptive so we can avoid it. Give us 2 diffs. There is a content dispute in Homeopathy -Thanks.--] (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::* appears to be straightforward advocacy which is discouraged by our basic ] and ] rules. The following sections are similarly informative, with DanaUllman being obtuse (requiring another editor to puzzle out what exactly he was referring to) and appearing to represent his concerns misleadingly as a new point (the Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ''ad naseum'' and indeed prior to his ban DanaUlmman was involved in those discussions including about ''the very points he recently raised '''again'''''). I know from observation that he is capable is expressing his points directly in a forthright fashion without such vague references and ''maquillage''. Another sign that time has not changed the situation is his continual misuse of the phrase "NPOV" (such as referring to "NPOV sources"). <small>If my point is unclear, there is ''no such thing'' as a "NPOV source". NPOV is an article measure based on the predominance of information in reliable sources, not some subjective/personal measure of objectivity or neutrality.</small> With DanaUllman returning after such a harsh arbitration sanction, I would expect that he would take special care to familiarize himself with the expectations of our principles and practices, and especially to avoid the same patterns of conduct that lead to a ban from Misplaced Pages. Instead, he immediately soapboxed and engaged in tendentious debate. I hope this helps clarify why I have imposed the temporary topic ban while the community discusses how to move forward. --] (]) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Replying a bit more directly to the subject of your concern, it is not that difficult to avoid problematic behavior. Do not engage in general (forum-like) discussion and advocacy on Misplaced Pages. Do not misrepresent the content of reliable sources or the statements of other editors. Do not beat dead horses or mislead editors regarding the nature of discussions (such as whether they are novel or revisited). Be forthright in discussions and do not belabor discussion with vague points coupled with strong assertions of specific evidence. Follow these simple points and you will avoid the pitfalls that DanaUllman has experienced at this project. --] (]) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The page-in-question ''should'' be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. ] (]) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that the content dispute should be decided here. To be clear, 99% of the content dispute is moving one sentence earlier in the article and removing a source that failed verification. We're not talking about seeing how fast we can invoke Godwin's Law in a page about the GOP (though admittedly some editors are). I genuinely don't think the content in question actually substantial at all, which is why one editor increasingly spiralling into mudslinging over it while refusing to discuss changes beyond categorical rejection or highly mobile goalposts for inclusion is a problem. ] 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Vassyana: 1. The diff you gave shows that Dana referred to his point of view on BBC Horizon but very soon he moved to another subject and did not edit the article. Nothing else.I saw nothing else which could be problematic. Instead Ullman offered many reliable sources to discuss. 2. Lets give to Ullman some tiny credit.] | |||
| "The Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ''ad naseum''" is incorrect. Just few days ago or so when Dana Ullman he was proposing to add a comment from the Lancet supporting the efficasy of OSCILL., the editors -they want him now banned, they were saying that the Cochrane review on OSC was a better source . Few hours later they discovered that it was withdrawn. That created confusion since it is still appearing in the Cochrane Library website. | |||
| :I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: {{u|Warrenmck}} wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page. | |||
| You imposed the ban when we were discussing another issue : whether or not several papers and info from exceptional reliable sources (which express different views on the Homeopathy effectiveness and meta analyses) should be included in the article as you already have seen in the talk page. | |||
| :What {{u|Warrenmck}} does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up ''all the time''. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach. | |||
| :For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was {{u|Czello}}. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages. | |||
| ]. ]4 editors dispute the neutrality of the article and you chose to ban Ullman ban upon request. The editors asked they same question : Is appropriate to exclude minority views on Homeopathy since they are published in many decent RS? Some editors say yes. You agree with this ? Is it appropriate to take a side in a content dispute and ban an editor? --] (]) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've ''added'' additional citations to address {{u|Warrenmck}}'s concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. '''] ]''' 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we will have the agree to disagree on the impact and nature of DanaUllman's talk page contributions, as we obviously have very distinct perceptions of the circumstances. Moving on, if you review the history of talk page discussions in the homeopathy topic area, you will find that the Cochrane Collaboration material (including the findings in particular that DanaUllman is asserting) has been discussed on many occasions. Part of my concern is this is the same material DanaUllman was discussing (in the same tone and fashion) in the weeks leading up to the arbitration case where a full ban was imposed on him for homeopathy advocacy. Regardless, the topic ban of DanaUllman is short-term and considered a temporary measure. Discussion may lead to other uninvolved editors supporting stronger restrictions, a set of alternate editing restrictions, a full ban, or even no sanctions at all. Let us give a chance for other ''uninvolved'' admins to review the situation and comment. I'll gladly follow whatever consensus emerges. --] (]) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a ''minor faction'', per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that | |||
| ::{{quote|Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge?}} | |||
| ::and you responded | |||
| ::{{quote|Which is labeling the party as it.}} | |||
| ::Which isn't how NPOV editing works. | |||
| ::Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus. | |||
| ::{{tq|I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes}} | |||
| ::Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point . Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. ''I did not make the change I knew would be controversial'', that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal () Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events. | |||
| ::This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. ] 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though. | |||
| :::What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? '''] ]''' 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Literally in this ANI: | |||
| ::::{{tq|Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"}} | |||
| ::::That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page: | |||
| ::::{{tq|Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing.}} ] 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are making a distinction without a difference. '''] ]''' 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. ] (]) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ] appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. ] ] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I rightfully have said and still assert (and Shoemaker’s quote helps to verify!) that the findings of Linde 1997 study were NOT retracted. Shoemaker even quotes directly in Linde’s 1999 article that the new evidence “weakens” his previous findings, but he clearly doesn’t “retract” his results…he simply found that they were less strong. The quote that Shoemaker provides is: “The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis.” The fact that Shoemaker asserts that this quote proves the Linde “retracted” his previous findings is evidence of poor scholarship or purposeful antagonism to the subject that clouds his normally rational mind. | |||
| *:I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks ]: | |||
| : Further evidence of Linde’s viewpoint on this subject was his strong critique of the Shang review of research. | |||
| *:{{quote|An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.}} | |||
| *:The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here ] and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a ''hell'' of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards. | |||
| *:Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has ]ed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As ] said, {{tq|"Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?"}} ] 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. ] 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place ''after'' I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer ] problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an ] mentality. ] (]) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. and . I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff: | |||
| *::::{{tq|The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late}} | |||
| *::::Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @] appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up ''all over''[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. ] 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. ] (]) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find ''years'' worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments. | |||
| *::::::If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling ] 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. ] (]) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. ] (]) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. ] (]) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Respectfully ] and ] are behavioural problems. ] (]) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse (). | |||
| : Shoemaker is also upset that I did not see the link that he provided that “proved” that this article was withdrawn. http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html -- However (!), to me, this article is not available without subscription. I could NOT make certain that this article was “withdrawn” with certainty, and further, I provided solid evidence that the 2006 article was still posted at the Cochrane site…and further, that this article was also posted in 2009, issue #2. <ref> http://www.cochrane.org/news/articles/CD001957_standard.pdf</ref> | |||
| :while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree ''at all'' makes this pretty ] behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for ]. ] 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' ] for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was | |||
| :{{quote|Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.}} | |||
| :This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. ] 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to ] more than ]. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. ] (]) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. ] 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. ] (]) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. ] (]) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.}} | |||
| ::::And ''very clearly'' retaliatory. ] 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per ]: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually. | |||
| :::::You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Misplaced Pages citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. '''] ]''' 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}} | |||
| ::::::Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the ''exact'' types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. ] 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. '''] ]''' 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with {{U|Springee}} about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. ] (]) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for ''the exact same behaviour''. ] 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As a perfect example, in this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist. <s>This is because it says that the party isn't ''just'' a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist ] and the fascist propagandist ]. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop". </s>] (]) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok here's the correct quote now: {{tq|The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.<br /> This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.<br /> While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear.}} | |||
| ::::::Now this article does compare the ''Democratic party'' as a whole to ''Trump'' on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is {{tq|It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it.}} The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. ] (]) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also, the ''New York Times'' introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data." ] says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source. | |||
| :::::::It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used. | |||
| :::::::My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. ] (]) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what ] says {{tq|When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.}} ] (]) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. ] (]) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page. Maybe it would be best if editors heavily involved there, would avoid each other & allow newcomers room to give their input. Might lower the heat. ] (]) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Since my return to wikipedia, I have not done a single “edit” of an article. I have only participated in Talk pages…and obviously, my bringing up studies in major medical journals and other RS sources is disconcerting to him. Although I know that we can all sympathize with him and his POV, we all need to make an effort toward NPOV. | |||
| :{{tq|Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.}} | |||
| : The other people here who are recommending sanctions against me are the usual suspects…people who are extremely active on the homeopathy article who have a long history of blocking many even mildly positive facts or information on homeopathy. Then, there are some wiki editors who are claimly to be “uninvolved” but it just so happens that they are seemingly “new” wiki editors, despite many obvious editing contributions to complex[REDACTED] issues (is someone a sock here?): ] | |||
| :It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. ] 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I have been shown to be a civilized editor. I have been shown to provide important contributions to this discussion; however, just because I seem to provide RS references and facts that differ from Shoemaker, he makes the above complaint. | |||
| : I believe strongly that my recent “topic ban” has been unfairly bestowed upon me, and instead, I urge Admins to evaluate those editors in the homeopathy article who are showing clear antagonism and bias to the subject and are blocking NPOV information in it. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse ban of any length, re-applied as needed'''. My recent experiences with him give me no confidence at all that he can be neutral about his pet subject. He'll go on indefinitely, wasting the time of other editors, if he's allowed to do so. ] ] 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. ] (]) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse ban''' from Homeopathy and related pages. Homeopathy had stabilised and was improving, but Dana has turned it into a battlefield, promoting his own work, or trying to get[REDACTED] articles to agree with his published work. Doesn't seem to have learned anything from his block. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions. | |||
| *'''endorse ban''' Clearly doesn't understand ]. Having him edit these pahes is detrimental to the construction of an encyclopedia. ] (]) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources. | |||
| ::Wow, all of this antimosity against me despite the fact that I have not edited a single article, have a history of being a civil editor, and have a history of referencing high-impact medical and scientific journals. I have no intent to have[REDACTED] repeat anything that I've written elsewhere, even various peer-review articles and book chapters. I only have a desire to submit information that seems accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. It seems that most of the above people who want me banned have content issues with me or are friends of those who do... It is not my intention to battle (at all). My intent is to collaborate...I hope that some admins look at my recent short contributions to the Talk pages and see for yourself (and please see context too). Humbly... ]<sup>]</sup> 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Please do something'''. After a year's ban, Mr. Ullman started right back up with the identical issues (the efficacy of ] and the 20/20 episode) that he left off with in 2008. He is unequivocally engaging in advocacy, for which he was blocked for a year by arbcom. It is clear by his statement directly above that he sees nothing at all wrong with this. Sources that he presents invariably have to be double and triple checked to be sure they say what he says they do, which they usually don't. Furthermore, dormant user (]) and a new user (]), both pro-homeopathy ]s, jumped in immediately to support Mr. Ullman and make his suggested edits to the main article. Edit warring, gross source misrepresentation, talk page filibustering, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have ensued. The situation before his re-arrival was one of incremental and agreeable collaboration. The final straw, for me, is continuing to argue for the inclusion of a <i>withdrawn</i> paper, after it has been made clear that a withdrawn journal article is unusable. Topic ban him, indef him, whatever, just keep him far away from anything related to homeopathy, please. ] (]) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. ] (]) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:<s>'''Oppose ban'''. He should be given another chance to stop has disrption, because he doesn't seem to be editing in total bad faith. -- ](]|]) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::::See ]: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." | |||
| *'''Endorse ban''' - this user has long since passed his use-by date. His pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing is well established. He's here to further a particular agenda, not the encyclopedia. It's time for the community to flush him once and for all. ] (]) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist? | |||
| ::::If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. ] (]) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have not claimed that I prefer news sources over academic sources, not that news sources override academic consensus. You are asking me to defend a position I haven't actually taken i.e. you are strawmanning. ] (]) 10:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If I am following this properly, via the thread on the linked talk page: | |||
| # The OP made a thread on ] saying that we should change the article to say that it was "anti-intellectual" and "far-right". | |||
| # Toa_Nidhiki05 said that this was a bad idea, and some stuff about previous consensus against doing this. | |||
| # ??? | |||
| # AN/I thread | |||
| Is there anything I'm missing here? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? ] 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse ban''' We are not here to give people chances, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Someone does not need to act in "total" bad faith to be disruptive. We don't need people who turn this place into a battleground. ] 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning? | |||
| ::But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. '''] ]''' 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN: {{tq|There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines}}. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out. | |||
| :::You’ve been doing this for ''years'' and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been ''very'' explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @]’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a ]. ] 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose indef community ban''', in case it wasn't clear from my TLDR post above. This seems way out of proportion. Arguing with Dana is frustrating and his presence at the homeopathy talk page seems unlikely to improve the article. But as in the case of Dr.Jhingaadey (just look at the groundless agitation at ]) some people are going nuclear because of a perceived danger from Dana that I simply can't see. I believe any perceived disruption comes from the reactions to Dana at least as much as from what he says. It's not unreasonable to ban such an editor per putting the encylopedia above everything else. I believe the German Misplaced Pages might do it like this. But here? I am not currently aware of any other topic than homeopathy where a community ban would even be considered for this behaviour. ] ] 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: ], just in case anyone wants to review it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @] engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating | |||
| :::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}} | |||
| :::::In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing . | |||
| :::::A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. ] 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*As I expected, {{ping|Warrenmck}} - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them. | |||
| ::::::*First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the ] page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of ''this'' report. | |||
| ::::::*Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you ''still cannot define what POV I am pushing'' - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning ''is''. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list ] and ] as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is ''yours'', because it's been utterly ridiculous. | |||
| ::::::*You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. '''I think everything I said is correct'''. Your proposal was '''bad'''. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly. | |||
| ::::::*Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me '''here''' of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to ''agree'' with me. | |||
| ::::::*Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over. | |||
| ::::::*I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting '''my''' time, you are wasting '''your''' time, and you're wasting '''everyone's''' time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. '''] ]''' 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. ] (]) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*::TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are ''several new peer reviewed sources'' that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of ''multiple other editors'' and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. ] (]) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:::A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of ], ], and ]. ] 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example: | |||
| ::::::*:{{tq|Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.}} | |||
| ::::::*:Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the ''context'' in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a . | |||
| ::::::*::'''1.''' You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to. | |||
| ::::::*::'''2.''' Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for ''years'', once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not | |||
| ::::::*::'''3.''' In the absence of any substantive objection, ] material should be added in. | |||
| ::::::*:] doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and ] then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. ] 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*If you're going to accuse {{ping|Springee}} of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here. | |||
| ::::::::*Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a ] exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you. | |||
| ::::::::*With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. '''] ]''' 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*:Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @], who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. ] (]) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*::Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? ] (]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*:::I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. ] (]) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*::I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. ] (]) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Warrenmck}}, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards ]. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I can back away ] 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Reading through this, it does seem that Toa is engaged in polite POV pushing and dismissing any source they dislike, along with some ]y tagging in retaliation for their own cites being questioned. At this point, I think an ] filing for the ] is needed. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you please explain what POV I am pushing here? | |||
| ::Additionally: I want to emphasize that my source checks have resulted in ''no change to the prose of the article'' - this is because each of the source groupings (which had over a half-dozen, or verging on a dozen citations each) have at least one or more source(s) that actually meet the claim in question, and I think the claims in question are, demonstrably, pretty accurate. The source reviews are simply removing cases of ] that don't actually meet the specific claims in question. As far as I can tell, none of these citation groupings were added by Warrenmck or other involved editors in question here; I didn't object on page to the inclusion of content related to right-wing populism, I didn't object to it being added to the infobox, and I didn't object to it being added to the lead - and I don't object to the inclusion of said content now. The only thing I object to is the inclusion of citations that don't back up claims. Do you have any specific objections to the sources that I've tagged? '''] ]''' 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated WP:GS/AA violations == | |||
| *I think the problem here is limited to the subject of homoeopathy, and probably results from Dana's advocacy and his frequent COI issues there. His failure to acknowledge COI issues may also contribute to the problem. For example , where I had drawn attention to the fact that advocating insertion of references to "Oscillococcinum" on ] so that it supported (and which had recently been republished in several places on the web) about swine flu gave him a clear COI. He responded "why does it matter what I've written off-wikipedia, and have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?" He just doesn't seem to understand the issue here. Note also that in the diff I've linked to he also implies that he hasn't cited or linked to his own articles ("have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?") despite having (albeit having acknowledged that it was his own website) only a week before on the same talk page; in the past he has at least once pasted material from his own site directly into an article (see and - incidentally the reference cited in that diff appeared to mention neither William Court Gully nor George Woodyatt Hastings, despite having been cited to support a passage about their alleged antagonism). A topic ban may be appropriate. There's probably no reason for a Misplaced Pages-wide ban (I assume that's what is meant by "community ban"); however, since all (or almost all) of his edits have been in some way connected to homoeopathy a topic ban may amount to the same thing. ] (]) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yes, a ''topic'' ban on homeopathy would serve the same purpose of stopping the disruption (mind you, only under the same conditions as Vassayana's two-week topic ban above). --] (]) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant. | |||
| *'''oppose'''It is quite surprising that a well known writer who has served as an instructor in homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco, and as member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons as the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference, and has been consulted by ]'s Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness, he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals'' to be treated like that in this forum. This does not look good on wikipedia. Even if I understand all the editor's concerns about pseudoscience and I agree with them ( some times ) this animosity cannot be justified. Maybe his style is passionate, maybe he made some mistakes in terms of style in the past but I think skeptics and Misplaced Pages could use him to improve the Homeopathy article. I don't think we are enemies here even if we disagree some times. I m confident that a civilized solution will be found. --] (]) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by ] such as the following: ], ], ], and made poorly sourced POV additions such as: | |||
| :*His credentials outside Misplaced Pages <s>are irrelevant</s> they would be relevant if he used his expertise to improve the articles in[REDACTED] according to policies and guidelines, which he is not doing. And they are relevant when evaluating if he is violating the ] which seems to be the case here. The reasons for the ban are his continued disruptive behaviour in-wiki, and his refusal to correct it. "He is an expert in Real Life" is not a reason for not issuing a ban unless ignoring this reason worsens the quality of articles. If he behaves in Misplaced Pages in unacceptable ways then he can fully expect to be banned from it. I remember that ] was banned (temporaly) in spite of being an expert, and so was ], and Dana was already banned by one year by Arbcom, and I'm sure that there are other examples. And I don't think that those bans made Misplaced Pages look bad at all, quite the contrary, it showed that we treat all users equaly. And please don't understate the disruption that he has caused in the talk pages of homeopathy-related articles. --] (]) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ] writes about my “frequent” COI, where he correctly sited the ONE time I referenced my own site AND where he referenced my acknowledgement of this and my assertion that it is not RS, along with my note that this link was to a personal email from Professor Ennis that provided some direct insight into the veracity of a discussion at hand. Brunton also expressed concern that my Talk contributions sometimes included some of the same references to research in which I provided in articles that I have written. In due respect, I did not reference or link my articles. Is he actually suggesting that a wiki editor who writes about a subject in a non-wiki source creates a COI if he or she writes about this subject on wiki, even when he doesn’t reference his own work? It seems that someone is either extending the definition of COI or simply selectively enforcing it. | |||
| * | |||
| By the way, I originally chose to edit under my real name because I seek to maintain high ethics in my life and being transparent seems to be one important way to maintain this standard. While I could have easily used a fake name and thereby allowing myself a lot more ability to refer to my work, this is neither my style nor ethics. If I were really trying to be an “advocate,” I would have done this. Instead, I want to be a resource to people who are working on this article. | |||
| * | |||
| ] asserts that my references and discussions the Cochrane Report and to a Lancet “News and Notes” article are “advocacy.”. ] then chose to question if the Lancet’s News and Notes was “peer-reviewed” , as though something written by their editors or editorial staff of this prestigious journal was suddenly not reliable because it had something positive to say about homeopathy. | |||
| Not only Scherbatsky12 was aware about, and even deleted the GS/AA notice , they still made several articles in its violation regardless and made GS/AA breaching additions that also include POV poorly sourced edits. ] (]) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| What is remarkable is how offensive some editors can be to me personally and to my references to high quality research (as determined by reliable sources), and yet, no wiki editors or admins do any degree of admonishment of them. I can only imagine what would happen if I referred to an editor here as “delusional” as ] did here or what ] did when he created a section entitled ]. | |||
| :Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Because so many antagonists to homeopathy edit the article on wikipedia, it is not surprising when normally recognized reliable sources of meta-analyses are ignored when these sources report positive results from homeopathic treatment. There are many examples to give, but the Cochrane Report on the homeopathic treatment of adverse effects from conventional cancer treatment is ignored in the article My apologies for providing a “content” issue here, but my point here is that[REDACTED] needs more balance in many of its articles because they are dominated by just one side of the issue, while there needs to be a better effort at balance. | |||
| ::Given them a on the matter. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. ] (]) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Consider revoking EC status on Scherbatsky when he reaches 501 total edits. ] (]) 00:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: . It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. ] (]) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again. | |||
| ::This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't ] enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. ] (]) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And now that I'm back after having power out for a couple of days due to the storm, I see they've ''continued'' editing. I've blocked for 48 hours, hopefully that will be enough. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Danny5784 == | |||
| It is surprising how many editors who have sought to reference good research meta-analyses that have positive results for homeopathy have been sanctioned, banned, harassed, or simply overwhelmed by the larger number of antagonists to the field. I would hope that[REDACTED] would seek to protect some “experts” in order to create a real encyclopedia. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Danny5784}} does not seem to have the maturity and judgement to be a productive editor. Despite ] and efforts by multiple editors to explain things to them, they are continuing to create unneeded pages. Of the 18 articles they've created, 9 have been redirected (mostly at AfD), 2 deleted, and 4 currently have unanimous delete/redirect consensus at AfD. Three of their most recent creations are particularly noteworthy: | |||
| :Dana Ullman is known to misrepresent sources. Evidence of this appears on the arbitration page, but we can give | |||
| * After ] was declined by {{u|Stuartyeates}}, and I ] that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 ]. | |||
| * Danny5784 created ] with poor sourcing, much of it from a user-generated wiki. After {{u|Djflem}} wrangled it into a useful list, Danny5784 created both ] and ] apparently as ]. | |||
| Danny5784 also has issues with copyright: they uploaded a large number of now-deleted files on Commons and ], then did ] here, plus using blatantly false non-free content criteria. | |||
| With 460 edits over 15 months, Danny5784 is past the point where these can just be dismissed as newbie mistakes. They are a ] editor who is unwilling or unable to follow basic norms such as notability, reliable sourcing, and copyright. Until they demonstrate more maturity, I believe a prohibition from page creation (article, template, and file upload) is needed. ] (]) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For instance, in ], Ullman uses a note, which is not included on the journal's webpage or pubmed; a study's inclusion in a meta-analysis, and various other things to suggest that we ''throw out all large-scale metanalyses and work showing that homeopathy doesn't work, and replace it with his hand-picked set of studies, raising the weakest results to the status of "high-quality replicated studies". ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!--{{hat|1=A wild ] appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}--> | |||
| ::Shoemaker all the meta analysis are not definitive and are kind of controversial. Look at the talk page Linde's criticism to The Lancet about Shang meta analysis. Adler above says that ''the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that ''one'' of the positive findings ''is'' replicable.'' Maybe he meant that? I don't know about the other papers. --] (]) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done. | |||
| :::No. Dana ''has'' misrepresented sources, and also misrepresented the consensus of other editors at the talk pages, and he got that three-month topic ban when was caught red-handed misrepresenting the comment of another editor during the Homeopathy arbitration case, as seen ] (at the end of the section). This is not a content problem but a ''behaviour'' problem. --] (]) 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than ] so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. ] (]) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For recent (i.e. since his return from the 1 year ban) examples of this sort of thing, see for example , in which he claims that when he cited his own website "several people defended this action": the "action" in question is in the section of the talk page headed "Rephrase please" - there is no sign there of anyone defending it. Or , in which he writes "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments": scrolling back up the talk page to the relevant section (headed "Updating Info on Replication of studies") reveals that the issue was brought up not by "the wiki community" but by Dana Ullman himself. These may be comparatively trivial examples, but they would appear to indicate a continuing pattern of behaviour. ] (]) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. ] (]) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. ] (]/]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear {{confirmed}} result.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. ] (]) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Liz}} I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!--{{hab}}--> | |||
| :::::::No problem, ever, with unarchiving, ]. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). ] (]) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Dana - What you are trying to do with Misplaced Pages is essentially to synthesize a secondary source here, from a number of primary sources. You have been constantly treading on the grey line dividing normal summarization and reporting and paraphrasing legitimate secondary and primary sources, and ] (and in the process, ], and other related policies). | |||
| :Clerical note that this user is not the ] DannyS712. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article == | |||
| You are, for all intents and purposes, too close to the topic to be doing what you've been doing here. | |||
| {{u|LivinAWestLife}} made a large change to the Republican Party article which changed the ideology of the party from the consensus Center-right to fascist. They quickly then changed the text to "far-right" . Any seasoned editor should know such behavior is beyond reckless and clearly disruptive. ] (]) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If you go out and write overview secondary source / tertiary source articles in reliable publications, those can be cited in Misplaced Pages. Trying to write that material directly in here - what you've been striving to do (directly with pre-Arbcom-block, and indirectly with talk page discussion since) - is not acceptable behavior. | |||
| :Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Fighting the secondary sources battle '''in Misplaced Pages''' is all about what ] and ] show is entirely what Misplaced Pages is not here for. | |||
| ::Vandalism is vandalism and is ''not'' funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a ''very'' low tolerance for trolls, ''especially'' in contentious topics. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also worth noting that ]. Regards, ]. (] | ]). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. ] (]) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you ''really'' have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see ]. ] (]) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. ] (]) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Couldn't you have just used inspect element? ] (]) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're taking a ''very'' long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. ] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «''Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back''» and there are no consequences? ] (]) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. ] (]) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their ]. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. ] (]) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. ] (]) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Editor repeatedly reverting edits == | |||
| If you will not work to understand that, in good faith, then you need to leave the project. In this case, your being an expert (and as experts are, particularly opinionated) is leading to significant mis-use of the Misplaced Pages project. This type of debate is '''not what we're here for'''. Please accept that, or leave of your own accord. You will do your field much better work if you write these synthesizing opinions and reviews and overviews elsewhere and let others include those (presumably, as you're clearly an expert) reliable secondary sources here once you've published elsewere. | |||
| {{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}} | |||
| This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.! | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I tried to communicate on ] but editor just went away! | |||
| For such behavior the editor has been | |||
| This editor last time also pushed me to violate ] , | |||
| ::Hi there. Can you please clarify what do you mean? I agree though synthesis is not in our rules. For instance The lead which is not written by Dana Ullman says "Homeopathy 's efficacy is not supported by the collective weight of the scientific and clinical studies". Since meta analyses have been controversial and inconclusive with the results conflicting somehow each other ( according to our reliable sources ) this could be considered a synthesis and thus should be avoided? I m trying to understand what we should not do. Thanks --] (]) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| While i was trying to improve the ] article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per | |||
| :::In the case of controversial topics, we have to say something. ] and ] work to support ] - we report the general community biggest consensus as our main focus, and present major alternative viewpoints commensurate with their weight in the field. | |||
| ] where it is clearly mentioned | |||
| :::We can't avoid doing some judgement to determine what is the consensus neutral point, and how much weight, but in the case of Homeopathy (and many related fringe science/medicine topics) we have determined that the "mainstream view" is the consensus neutral point and that the proponents view, fairly reported, is the alternative. An article focused on alternatives like this should probably aim for something like 50:50 balance (the article topic is the fringe / alternative topic, after all) in terms of page space, though that will vary by topic greatly. | |||
| :::Dana Ullman's work, done in an external reliable venue, could then be presented neutrally and straightforwardly in the sections describing the pro-homeopathic research studies in more depth. | |||
| :::Done directly here, however, it's ], ] and bad for Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::We are not denying that he's a major figure in the field - our point is, him being a major figure and being here does not shift the point of neutrality, even though he can both argue in more focused detail and depth than the average editor. | |||
| :::He can write synthetic overviews, in external reliable sources, and we can include them (he should not - ] and ] prohibit that - but others could). He can perhaps provide better, more balanced specific sources for the pro-homeopathy arguments. There are lots of things we can do here. | |||
| :::But what we and he can't do here is use Misplaced Pages as the venue to synthesize new material that's original research - whether that's new primary research or new secondary source overviews and reporting. You make secondary sources '''out there''' - in ] which we can ]. And then, we can include them. | |||
| :::Synthesize here bad. Synthesize elsewhere in RS, then report on what RS said elsewhere, good. ] (]) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "''In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.''" | |||
| :::: Thanks for your response. As an introduction : I was looking to determine if Homeopathy is a fringe belief and I could not find a reliable source which states it. In the contrary, I found a reliable source BBC which states No skeptic argued against this during the conversation. If somebody has a major reliable source which states that Homeopathy is fringe - besides the skeptics organizations, please let me know. | |||
| Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand. | |||
| :::: Homeopathy is a highly controversial topic according to our The mainstream scientists have not reached a strong consensus about its efficacy, if we believe again in our reliable sources: The American Medical Association states that "The efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven.". The early meta analyses are positive but not fully conclusive and definite, some others negative and positive and the recent Lancet meta analyses are negative but its results strongly criticized by other mainstream sources (with letters published in the Lancet and papers at the | |||
| I don't know why the editor doesn't understand ] and ] are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense before, and now this again! ] (]) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Meanwhile very notable Homeopaths have published their . Currently excluded from the article! | |||
| :Hello, ], | |||
| :::: The main problem is that some of the sources have been excluded and the article reports that the mainstream consensus is that Homeopathy is unsupported by the collective weight ...... which is as you see above at least inaccurate according to the our RS. | |||
| :First ] is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry@] actually before this, i went on your to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided . ] (]) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's '''your''' action, not theirs. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They are the one who started removing/reverting repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are . Plese see ] edit history. ] (]) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". ] is a bright line. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They edit in group, while i started a discussion but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on ] but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. ] (]) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the ] for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? ] (]) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a ] sanction is appropriate here. - ] (]) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I believe that Ullman tries to convince the other editors to use all the RS about Homeopathy's efficacy and not only the negative ones. And also to include the minority view in the article which is currently excluded for instance Fisher's article/paper. | |||
| ::? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Yeh, I went to the ] noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my . What do you want to prove through this? ] (]) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with ] from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I read over ] discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on ]. Thanks again ] (]) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Usually, when an editor returns to their edit war after being blocked, without once contributing to the article talk page discussions, they are blocked. | |||
| :::: I did not see any synthesis from his part but maybe I have to look more for this. If you have seen something please provide a diff so I can also read it.--] (]) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is ] , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent ], ] and and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --] (]) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose ban of DanaUllman.''' | |||
| :I don't know what you're up to, but , I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks ] (]) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| What I've found most frustrating about the editing process for this topic is the screening of allowable RS articles published in respected peer-review journals, and also prominent secondary sources. When a statement that requires support of an RS is advanced, and that source either contends to support the efficacy of homeopathy, or criticizes the results of other anti-homeopathy research, that RS itself is attacked on some obscure grounds, lessening its value by stating it's too old, or it's been detracted (not!), or it's results have been heavily criticized and put to rest, or newer sources invalidate them (as if seminal older RSs suddenly become impertinent). All in an attempt to keep fair and RS supported content at bay. This is not in the least neutral in my opinion. DanaUllman, unfortunately, has been caught in this whirlpool of bias and intransigence. From my perspective, attempting to disassemble it, it seems, has proved overwhelming, to the point where one person cannot be expected to respond to every accusation or criticism made towards him by a group of others (allusion to IDIDNTHEARTHAT). In the short time I've contributing to editing for this article, many criticisms of propositions and suggestions I and others have put forward to make the article more neutral, have been repeatedly attacked even after they have been explained very clearly as to why and the reasons. And counter-suggestions have rarely, if ever, been advanced by the anti-homeopathy quorum. It seems as though a strong case of viral IDIDNTHEARTHAT is sweeping the forum. | |||
| ::{{tq| I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above}} That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --] (]) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::], can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if {{they are|Sokoreq}} using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, {{their|Sokoreq}} own behavior. --] (]) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Trolling at ] == | |||
| As far as misrepresentation of RSs goes -- virtually *everyone* on the homeopathy talk page that has attempted to say anything substantive, has misrepresented sources by selectively quoting from them, selectively summarizing them, or biasely paraphrasing them, and then failing to notice a statement in some other part of the article which puts this interpretation into serious question. If DanaUllman is guilty of this, he is in *very* good company. Even so, I don't really blame editors for this if it's occasional, as perhaps this is due to unintentional zeal of having found what appears to be clear evidence in support of one's POV, to the blind exclusion of all else. | |||
| {{atop|1=Done (for now). - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528}} | |||
| ] please. ] ] 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :]? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--] ] 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. ] (]) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Semi-protected now, thanks ] ] (]) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ping|Isabelle Belato|Acroterion}} Needs talk page access yanked too.--] ] 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Done. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn == | |||
| I don't believe DanaUllman should be banned, as I've learned a great deal from his participation in the discussion. He provides a unique perspective that is refreshing in (what I perceive to be) an already highly anti-homeopathy-biased forum. I've addressed specifically in the talk page two of the areas I see as biased, and now I've noticed a third involving the citing of publication bias -- but only in one direction in support of anti-homeopathy views, when there are *many* examples of publication bias in the opposite direction as well (the talk page reference lists many of them). But I haven't yet gotten around to addressing this latest issue on the talk page. | |||
| {{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}} | |||
| ], so bringing this here. ] and I engaged in an edit war at ], which began as a content dispute but is now more of conduct issue. Less than 12 hours after he was blocked (for ), ] shows up as a brand new single-purpose account to make the for the "win", whilst predictably . How is this not ]? | |||
| I'd be happy to hash out the original content dispute at ] and see if anything needs tweaking at ], but not when there's obvious bad faith tag teaming going on. ] (]) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If DanaUllman is ultimately banned (which I don't support or agree with), then I would at minimum suggest banning at least two or three editors from the anti-homeopathy side as well -- those who are especially culpable in creating repeated and consistent obstacles to constructive editing and more neutral improvements based on the merit of arguments advanced and RSs to support these arguments. | |||
| :It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? ] (]) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've restored it to the pre-socking version and {{U|Daniel Case}} has semi-protected the article.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. ] (]) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Potential Block Evasion by IP 47.67.231.5 (Original IP range 47.69.0.0, first sock IP 80.187.75.118) == | |||
| ] (]) 06:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ]. | |||
| :The suggestion that "editors from the anti-homeopathy side" should be banned in some kind of cold war style tit-for-tat seems needlessly confrontationalist. ] (]) 09:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below. | |||
| '''Disagree with banning''' | |||
| But Agree with Dbrisinda above. While I would support DanaUllman not being able to edit the actual homeopathy article because of a conflict of interests, I see an attempt at totally banning him as the anti-homeopaths just trying to lock away any and all resistance. | |||
| I have also said this before, and will say it again: '''If a homeopathic doctor can not be used for input, research, and statistics on their subject of expertise, then all physicians must be banned from editing medicine related articles''', as it is a conflict of interest, regardless of how up in the air the subject matter is. | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It's pretty clear that every editor that contributes to Homeopathy puts their opinions first. Anti-homeopathic editors will always search the Earth for any studies that disprove the efficacy, and shoot down anything otherwise, while pro-homeopathic editors will always search for studies that prove the efficacy while shooting down anything that disproves it. To be quite frank and honest, everyone (Including myself) needs to take a break from the subject and '''come back to it with an editors neutral point of view'''. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 17:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :EDIT: The IP is now <s>banned</s> blocked, with the original IP's <s>ban</s> block extended by another three months. ] (]) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose ban''' - I have had some concerns that I have pointed out to Dana and he has been very responsive and understanding. He is a COI editor and he acknowledges this, and he has not recently attempted to edit the Homeopathy article or any related article to my knowledge. What he has done is participate in Talk page conversations related to Homeopathy, a subject in which he has expertise other editors do not. I believe that those most strongly accusing him of bad behavior have engaged in similar actions, cherry picking and selectively representing sources in order to portray homeopathy in the most negative possible light. As far as the claim of ], the policy applies mainly in article space, not to the same extent in Talk space, where editors of all sides frequently synthesize in the course of discussion. The article has been one sided for a long time and I very much appreciate the input of others who can explain the other point of view and help us to achieve a more balanced presentation. I believe that Dana would benefit very much from helping improve Misplaced Pages in other articles unrelated to homeopathy, but I do not think a topic ban is necessary, nor would it be fair to single him out. —] (''']''') 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>] - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Thank you for the correction on my wording. ] (]) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Harassment and personal attacks == | |||
| '''Article Ban''' - It's time to see if Dana can edit articles (articlespace) other than Homeopathy. I recommend (initially) a 1 month article ban from Homeopathy. If Dana edits nothing else in this time, it's extended to 3 months. If there are still no edits to any other aricles - then indefinite ban implemented. I'm thinking that Dana needs to give the overall Community confidence that he isn't a one-trick pony and is actually interested in the project, rather than just one article out of millions. Of course if he violates the ban, then blocks can be issued per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision. ] (]) 06:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Since Dana hasn't edited the Homeopathy article recently, and has expressed his intention not to do so, I don't think an article ban from Homeopathy is meaningful. —] (''']''') 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dana is testing the Communities (short) paitence with him. I congratulate you that you are trying to help him. I'm trying to help him too - I don't want to see him permabanned, so how can he be encouraged to help himself? How about he go an edit another article - or discuss another article? His singleminded focus on homeopathy isn't helpful for him as a Wikipedian. If he doesn't diversify, well what is the Community going to do? ] (]) 08:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think Dana is trying to test anyone's patience, but I appreciate that some people are frustrated, and I do agree it would be good for Dana and the project if he would edit some other article. I'm not sure what more I can do to encourage him: I think it would increase both his understanding of the project and his respect from others involved in the project. I don't think a formal ban is necessary to encourage positive behavior, only to prevent negative behavior, but what mechanism can do this? I'm open to ideas too, because the goal all of us share should be improvement of the encyclopedia. —] (''']''') 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Riventree}} called another editor and myself a , said to the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an . ] (]) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Note and reminder=== | |||
| :Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. ] (]/]) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If anyone was in doubt the Homeopathy Wars are now in full blood again after a period of relative calm. Note also that the article ]. If there are admins out there who have rhinoceros-thick hides and want to help sort things out, please do. ] (]) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but ''indef'' for a user who ''has'', generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked ''once''? ] (]) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::: |
:::The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. ] (]/]) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::: |
::::It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. ] ] 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Or they failed to convince the editors who added those sources that there was a neutrality issue. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: |
:::::I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. ] (]) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: {{tq|'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA)}}. Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. ] ] 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :We're governed by ]. ] specifically deals with articles such as Homeopathy. That some editors disagree with it, and want a purely sympathetic view doesn't make the article a violation of NPOV. ] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It looks to me like they understand ''what'' they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the ''why'' (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nobody is arguing for a purely sympathetic view. Perhaps you would like a purely hostile view? —] (''']''') 07:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. ] (]) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The tag says in plain english that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" (By some editors). This is far from how some editors seem to think it reads: "A new topic disputing the neutrality of this article has appeared" or "This topic is not neutral". The tag simply states that some authors disagree with the stonewalling of the likes of ], ], ], and ] (And to a lesser extent by a few others to fill the gaps). The tag discussion, however, is for the talk page. If DanaUllman is causing chaos, its only because those 4 previously mentioned editors go absolutely haywire when someone disputes their studies (Which because they've been published later, somehow supercede the earlier studies... But haven't been around long enough for much peer review. Convenient, huh?). Dana has not (And has even privately said to me that he has no intention of doing so) edited the Homeopathy page, and has merely provided insight and discussion on the talk page. This is perfectly allowable. If you can't handle these comments, '''don't respond to them!''' - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Per our own internal classification (e.g. ]/]) it is formally a ], and the article ] is in the {{tl|political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate: | |||
| ::::::*"The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman." | |||
| ::::::*"Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec." | |||
| ::::::*"When we get into town, we should track down a food truck." | |||
| ::::::I am not really sure why these sentences would, ''prima facie'', constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this: | |||
| ::... that the ''']''' of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the ] perspective? | |||
| :From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that. | |||
| :I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (]), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far <del>and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet</del>. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. ] (]/]) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. ] (]) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Amended, thanks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|JPxG}} Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. ] ] 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. ] (]/]) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. ] (]/]) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what says: | |||
| :::::{{tq|to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.''}} | |||
| :::: says: | |||
| :::::{{tq|Follow successfully, locate, as in ''I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck''. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.” }} | |||
| :::: says: | |||
| :::::{{tq|If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''She had spent years trying to track down her parents.''}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.''}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.''}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.''}} | |||
| ::::Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said {{tq|Get this politically divisive ] off the damned front page}} and {{tq|And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page.}} Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. ] ] 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says {{tq|"Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there."}} on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. ] (]) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: {{tq|I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment.}} This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Proposal: commute block to topic ban ==== | |||
| If I might get back to the original point... all of the above only reinforces that we ''really'' need some uninvolved admins to maintain order. Pretty please? ] (]) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator ]) and JPxG's ] action should not stand, but a ] isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here. | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Lengthen the block if you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to ] ({{diff2|1270933193|1}}, {{diff2|1270933653|2}}). ] (]) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. ] (]/]) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? ] ] 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits: | |||
| *:::*: unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the ]. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no) | |||
| *:::* Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in ]. | |||
| *:::*: Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday | |||
| *:::*] shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later. | |||
| *:::**Similarly on other talk pages {{tq|Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?}} | |||
| *:::*] and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster". | |||
| *:::* Tried to make the article ] more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying {{tq|UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all.}} ]. | |||
| *:::Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @]'s concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? ] (]) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least ] broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. ] (]) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. ] (]) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Proposal: Reinstate indef ==== | |||
| == Stalking hounding and harassment == | |||
| A discussion is needed on this to prevent ] from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made. | |||
| * '''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. ] (]) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' reinstating indef, '''support''' gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --] 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. ] (]/]) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per {{u|Voorts}} and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by {{u|GreenLipstickLesbian}}. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. ] (]) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — ] ] 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' given the history documented by GreenLipstickLesbian, the revdel'd content described above, and the obvious foot-dragging in the appeal. If they ''are'' let back in then it should at least be an AP2 / Gensex topic ban given the user's inability to control their strong emotions in that topic area; but the previous outing coupled with the "track down" comment in particular crosses the line. --] (]) 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I can’t for the life of me explain why the indef was overturned in the first place. The PAs were bad enough, especially when you consider how tame the blurb that instigated them is. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I think it would be better to see what they do after the two-week block and what it would merit, re-indeffing already is a bit premature. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. That was unacceptable, but a first offense, and two weeks is plenty. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Blocks aren't punitive. They're preventative. We don't reduce block lengths because it's a first offense. Riventree made a threat and doesn't understand what he did was wrong. Until he understands what he did was wrong and commits to not doing it, a preventative indef is warranted. ] (]/]) 15:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::My opposition is based on the understanding of blocks as preventative, of course. That it's a first offense is evidence that there's not a high risk of re-offending. He's said on his Talk that he's sorry about everything he said. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::See GreenLipstickLesbian's comments above; this is not a first incident. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' and would support defining this as a ]. The outburst was unacceptable on its own, but as it's been shown that it's the latest in a pattern of unacceptable actions constituting harassment, combined with a history of blatantly POV commentary and corresponding edits in article space, this editor should not be editing Misplaced Pages at all. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': I think an indef for an editor who has behaved the way they have, historically and recently, will be a positive preventative measure. ] (]) 20:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' This is a massive overreaction. ] ] 07:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Given Cullen's description of the old edits, if Riventree wishes for a third chance to edit, they should demonstrate a much better understanding of the harassment policy than a {{tq|<shamefaced grimace>}}. Asking other constructive editors who actually do things like understand sourcing guidelines and NPOV to spend time putting up with personal attacks and harassment will drive them off. ] (]) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Anonymous8206 == | |||
| {{archivetop}} | |||
| {{atop|1=Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I've been at the receiving end and seen other editors receive very abusive treatment when they try to edit articles to include minority viewpoints consistent with our wp:NPOV policy. The policy states that "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content '''must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.'''" Yet those attempting to include minority viewpoints are often hounded and stalked. I understand that user talk pages are important means of communication, but if someone is told they're not welcome and their comments aren't related to article content why is the behavior allowed to continue? Also, I've seen and experienced these same "editors" following me to other talk pages and commenting in threads I'm involved in. Is this kind of taunting and harassment acceptable? The violation of our core NPOV policy seems bad enough, but after watching some major content contributors leave because of this, I'm very concerned that these methods are used to promote censorship and bias in our article content. ] (]) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Anonymous8206}} | |||
| Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at ] for over a year. Examples: . | |||
| They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : You know, you might actually get some help if you were a slightly bit more specific. General statements about how things are going aren't going to result in much. Can you provide some examples? Also, ] is probably the policy you're more concerned about than ]. -- ] (]) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :] policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. ] (]) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: ]. <s>I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate.</s> ] (]/]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to ] in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. ] (]/]) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual== | |||
| ::Here are some diffs of an "editor" who has been asked dozens of times to leave me alone and yet continues to stalk, harass, and taunt me. I have never seen them contribute to an article, so I don't see how any of their comments could relate to content contributing or collegial collaboration. , , , , , , , and there's also more discussion of me on their talk page. I've tried to ignore it, but it hasn't stopped. I'd just like them to leave me alone and to do their ummm... whatever you want to call it away from editors who don't welcome this activity. I haven't looked closely at all these diffs, they're just a recent sampling, but I don't think any of the discussions involved them at all so their comments were wholly unwelcome and not constructive. ] (]) 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result={{NAC}} Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::What does all this about Baseball Bugs (and have you notified him of this) have to do with NPOV? - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • 02:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| As the title suggests, this includes: | |||
| *Well, since we won't actually , I'll let him know that he is being discussed. ] (]) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|SuvGh}} | |||
| ::Without having seen this, I'd left a note on Bugs' talk page asking that editor to avoid commenting on or interacting with ChildofMidnight (which Bugs had said would happen in the past). Rather than this turning into another endless Obama thread that produces nothing other than acrimony, can ChildofMidnight and Baseball Bugs both agree to not interact with (or comment on) one another? It should not be that hard. ChildofMidnight already sounds amenable to that, and as I said Bugs was at one point. I think that addresses the core issue, so let's see what the two editors have to say about that proposal before going any further. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Making personal attacks such as "Enough of explaining r@cist Brits what to do", "you're probably an ignorant British man", and has tried to remove relevant content about 4 times now. | |||
| :::I think in this case, regardless of what you feel about the politics at the heart of the dispute, these comments are over-the-line in terms of ] and Bugs needs to stop this sort of thing. Calling someone names like "POV-pusher" is probably not very helpful in terms of resolving any dispute, and clearly violates the letter and spirit of ]. I think he needs to step back and stop making these sorts of comments at Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, it would help if Bugs and CoM agreed to stop interacting with each other across any articles if possible. Of importance here is a recent ArbCom case as well, ]. --]''''']''''' 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you can't point out that someone is pushing a POV then why even have a policy against POV? From the post above where Child of Midnight complains about this issue he admits he is trying to add minority viewpoints, and a look at his edits shows he is indeed violating ] and ] by extension. I have no comment if Bugs went over the line, but the idea that you can't point out that someone is a POV pusher, especially with such longstanding evidence, is simply ridiculous. It's not a personal attack to point out when someone is breaking policy, and if they find that label as disparaging in some way the correct way to fix it is for them to '''stop breaking the policy''', not to complain about the people pointing it out. ] (]) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me. I should point out that I went to BB's talk page to notify them, but Protonk beat me to it. BB has also been asked to cease this behavior by numerous admins. I prefer to edit content than to chase down diffs. But if I need to I will try to come up with some. ] (]) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (ec multiples) | |||
| :ChildofMidnight, are you amenable to the solution put forward above, i.e. that you just completely avoid each other, assuming Baseball Bugs agrees to and abides by it as well? That seems to me the best way forward. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds fantastic to me. If there's a discussion that actually invovles us both like an Arbcom issue or something fine. But he can keep to his section and I'll keep to mine. Otherwise I don't see any need to interact at all. ] (]) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::One point of clarification to Jayron, none of his comments are on articles or article related, or in discussion involving him. Since I'm optimistic that at some point Arbcom will end their improper censoring of me, I don't want to be limited on what articles I can work on. I don't follow BB anywhere, but it's possible we'd be working on an article at the same time. In that case I think avoiding discussing each other directly would be fine. I already have enough people after me trying to chase me off[REDACTED] and off articles. I don't want to have to keep track of where he may or may not be. Like I said, I won't comment to or about him. No problem. That's the status quo for me at this point. ] (]) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}} | |||
| ::::I agree that Bugs has been clearly pushing your buttons. You've also been pushing his buttons and other people's buttons (your comments to ProtonK on his talk page on Aug 2, before Bugs chimed in; elsewhere). You and Bugs pushing each others buttons is actually staying remarkably restrained overall for how many times each of you did something to each other. | |||
| ::Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See ]. | |||
| ::::I agree that this is not constructive or civil. We have a tendency to let "experienced users" who get grumpy to poke each other for a while, if nobody complains then we assume everyone's thick skinned and can handle it. I think that's probably a mistake - even if you aren't personally insulted, it does bring down the level of conversation and drive away third parties, and the odds that someone will eventually become actually upset and it be a real problem are high. | |||
| ::::Without ascribing any root cause / fault - if Bugs can not follow any of your comments, if you can not leave comments folllowing his, or like those you left for ProtonK on the 2nd, and you and Bugs stay separated for a while it would probably be for the best. The voluntary mutual topic ban Bigtimeinpeace proposed seems like a great idea to me. ] (]) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually I need to clarify this stattement after reading GWH's comment. I absolutely have not pushed BBs buttons. I avoid that editor like the plague. Your comment is a gross distortion and unless you have diffs to back it up I suggest you strike it. | |||
| :::::My comments to Protonk related to his allegations against me which he didn't back off even when they were proved wrong. That behavior, in violation of AGF, was totally unacceptable and I let him know that. I haven't pursued the matter further and had you not brought it up I wouldn't have either. I see it as done and over. As you know from personal experience GWH, when there is behavior that I find disruptive and of serious harm to Misplaced Pages I address it. My comments to other editors and admins don't have anything to do with the stalking, harassing, and hounding of editors with minority viewpoints that promotes censorship, and you're conflating the two is disruptive and somewhat outrageous. I don't pursue those I disagree with on articles and I try to stay focused on article content and to leave personal opinions out of it. Despite the smears against me I am quite moderate, I avoid discussing my personal politics except in a discrete and humorous way, and I think it's important that various viewpoints are represented consistent with our core policy as cited above. ] (]) 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *CoM, I don't "engage" in any action against you, I just don't like your actions on some subjects. Like the Obama thread above. YOu are on restriction from Obama articles and talk pages but you knowingly post at an ANI thread about Obama doing an end run around your restrictions. That is bad faith editing. Then when you are called on it, Baseball Bugs or I have been mean to you or some crap. Act right, follow the rules, do something other than getting in people's business, follow your restrictions and maybe...just maybe...people wouldn't be on your case about everything. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • 03:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't ''currently'' editing it appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a ] attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. ] (]) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. ] (]) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have blocked both editors indefinitely. ] <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == 2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks == | |||
| If CoM would apologize for this then he would need never hear from me again, even when I catch him violating his topic ban the next time, and the next time, etc. He's driven me away from political pages; he's tried to box me in in various ways; he constantly makes accusations against me (and many others); but I'll be damned if I'm going to let him dictate my efforts here any further. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 05:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Bugs you link to that thread often, though I'm not sure why it still bothers you so much since it was literally five months ago (I'm also not sure exactly what aspect of it bothers you since there is so much stuff there). Can't you just let it go at this point, and do you really think an apology will actually be forthcoming, or that requiring someone to apologize on-Wiki before moving forward is helpful? I'm genuinely having trouble understanding what you want here. You and C of M do not get along in the slightest and are seemingly never going to agree on much of anything surrounding this tiff. Why not just back away, which C of M says he will do, and avoid one another, which is what you said you were going to do a month ago? The dispute between the two of you wastes other editors' time and accomplishes literall nothing, so can't we just squash the beef (mmmmmm....squash beef....) right here and now? --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Twice now I've turned him in for topic ban violations, and both time the experts agreed with me. He calls my reporting "stalking and harassment". For example, he accused me of "stalking" him to the Gates page. ''That is not true.'' I went to the Gates page to learn more about the subject, and there he was, violating his topic ban. I turned him in for it, and he didn't like it. Tough toenails. He's on a topic ban, and should know better. As someone else said earlier, he is constantly trying to push the envelope of that ban. The thing is, thanks to him and his brethren, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama articles, months ago. I want nothing to do with him. But he keeps popping up. With his complaint here, he's basically saying I don't have the right to report it when he breaks his topic ban. ''He has no right to dictate that.'' But here's the deal: He is basically saying he wants me to go away for good. I'm telling him how he can accomplish that. If he apologizes for that slap in my face back on March 8/9, he'll never hear from me again, unless he initiates a conversation. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's worth pointing out, though, that it's not just due to narcissism on my part that I keep going back to that link. It's to point out that his political agenda, what I call his POV-pushing, has been there from the beginning, and nothing has changed. Then, as now, he accuses[REDACTED] of being a cheerleader for Obama. He impugns the integrity of many editors, not just me. He has demonstrated that he has not a clue what NPOV means. I worked on both political poles - Obama and Palin - at times when they were under siege by POV-pushers. I actually got compliments from Republican-leaning editors for defending the Palin page. What I got for defending the Obama page is stuff like what CoM said back in March - a beat he continues to drum here, against everyone who dares to stand up to his behavior. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64}} I saw an IP making an ] on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and ]. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. ] (]) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal=== | |||
| :I blocked. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Until 1 January 2010, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are topicbanned from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, apart from ArbCom proceedings where ''both'' are named parties. | |||
| ::Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you saying that if I observe him breaking his Obama topic ban, I am not allowed to report it? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes. Either it will be noticed and dealt with by users less ...attached... to the situation, or you may email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to let them know. In any case, the onwiki disruption is getting silly, so it's best for the two of you to retire to separate corners and stay there. → ] ]<small> 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::How about it if instead of reporting in on-wiki, you e-mailed an administrator? It's likely that someone else would catch it - and really you should just ignore his edit trail - but if something comes up you could always ask an admin to investigate. That would avoid on-wiki drama but make sure that someone looked into the situation. | |||
| == Incivility and edit-warring == | |||
| ::Roux's proposal is fine with me, although it might not be a bad idea to simply make it indefinite rather than giving an end date, and to make it an informal arrangement which the two parties agree to. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 07:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|After being explained by Wiznut at 1.00am UTC today about how even discussing through edit summaries while reverting in good faith is edit warring, Thelittlefaerie has opened a discussion on the article talk and stopped edit warring. Additionally, they are now aware that making personal attacks is prohibited and have issued an apology to editors they attacked while in a heated argument. As a talk discussion is now open for content issues, and this user now seems aware about how we resolve disputes here on Misplaced Pages, I am closing this section with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur. I think a little ] is justified here as they are a new editor, who now knows about the dispute resolution processes and is now engaging collaboratively. ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::Indefinite, sure, but informal seems like a bad idea. CoM has already nibbled at the edges of his current topicban, so a clear and unambiguous statement--no comments on or about each other anywhere on en.wikipedia.org--is the best way to go. Simple and effective, with the usual escalating blocks for ''either'' editor even pushing at the edges. No commenting. Period. End of drama. → ] ]<small> 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| This is concerning user ] (] and ]). A new user, who initially made several good faith mistakes related to providing sources and not using original research. However, he also decided that the Afghanistan population at ] needed to be correct. A history of the edit war, which involved Thelittlefaerie vs three other editors (including me): | |||
| ::::Endpointed or not, if I happen to see what looks like an Obama topic ban violation, and if there's no issue about my sending an e-mail to an admin about it, then it's fine. And if I have reason to defend him (which I have done before, and which I did in a section farther down), then I would also use e-mail. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And to formalize it, presumably amend the arbcom ruling page on this matter. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::However, he has impugned other editors besides me. Can the arbcom ruling also be amended that he is to refrain from accusing wikipedians of being cheerleaders for Obama, regardless of where he might say it? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *This is fine, so long as both parties agree to it. I will state that hearing from CoM above that NH and Tarc act the same way with respect to CoM gives me pause. What we don't want is to establish a network of mutual editor bans where the real problem may not be negative pairwise interaction. If this is indeed the best solution at the lowest level, let's do it. If it isn't, then we should avoid it. To BB specifically, if you agree to this, I don't think you should worry about watching over CoM's vis a vis his topic ban. If he has really violated it in a specific area, someone else will notice and say something. ] (]) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **(ec)See, the problem is that ''his accusation is false''. I'm NOT "watching over" CoM regarding his topic ban. The two times I turned him in for ''possible'' topic ban, I did not "stalk" him as he claims, ''I just happened to see it.'' He came to the table here months ago with the preconceived ''WND''-like agenda that[REDACTED] is controlled by liberals and that that problem must be "corrected". He sees himself as some kind of knight crusading against this alleged problem, as the pronouncement on his own user page proclaims. Thanks in part to his behavior, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama pages months ago, and I don't watch his page either. But he does not have the right to ''dictate'' what pages to watch. What I watch or don't watch is my choice, not his. But if the consensus is that I only use e-mail to report possible violations, and to pretend on-wiki that he doesn't exist, I can do that. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 09:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, it's within your power to refuse to agree to a mutual editor ban. I'm just saying that should you agree to it, you probably shouldn't comment about CoM's edits at all. ] (]) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ****It's obvious he's never going to apologize for his offensive comments to me (and a host of others, but that's another story), so I'll have to settle for a "CoM on-wiki topic ban", and if I ''happen'' to see other rules violations that no one else has reported yet, I assure you I will not hesitate to report them myself, off-wiki as per the recommendation. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 09:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *****] is a wonderful place to handle on-wiki things, off-wiki - as I've recently learned. ;] '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] '''</sub> 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ******I've heard of it, and it doesn't sound like something I would want to get involved with. The next times CoM violates his topic ban or breaks other rules, I'll notify a trusted admin via e-mail and let him take appropriate action. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *******I do sometimes think, given CoM's ever-widening circle of targeted editors, that he has a secret wish to actually get perma-banned here. Then he and his ''WND'' buddies could do the "Told Ya So" dance together. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Users involved: | |||
| Counter-proposal: I will pretend that CoM does not exist, for as long as he remains active on wikipedia, provided that he is required to cease and desist from using inflammatory terms including but not limited to "troll", "vandal", "stalker", "harasser", "censor", "abuser", "POV-pusher" and so on, against ''any and all established users''. That would be on ''any and all pages''. Then I will likewise refrain from any such labeling against any and all users. If someone is feeling abused or harassed or whatever, there are proper channels which are permissible. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that counterproposal (the part about avoiding certain words) would be agreed to, unfortunately. The usage of inflammatory terms is a serious issue, but I don't think a voluntary restriction is going to work (in the end further dispute resolution may be required). However a voluntary restriction can clearly work in terms of you and C of M avoiding one another, and it seems you both agreed to that above, but I'm not sure if you're withdrawing that and saying you need something more now. Rather than insisting on this counter-proposal, can we just stick to something that can actually be accomplished and end this thread knowing that both of you agree not to engage with the other? As said you can contact admins about any issues you see. I don't want this ANI thread to end with no useful outcome. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the bright light of day, it occurred to me that it's easy for him to comply, because the only time he ever mentions my name ''is when I've called him out for rules violations'' and other bad behavior. So it's a one-sided deal, and unless there's some commitment on his part to improve his own behavior, we're done here. But I will do better to try to avoid him. Unless he changes his approach, he is headed slowly but surely for banishment (which is probably what he secretly wants), and there will be a parade of others to facilitate that; I won't be needed for it. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry but I don't understand the logic of the last comment. If you're not interacting with each other you're not interacting with each other, period. You would not be calling him out for rules violations (at least on-wiki) so he would not be able to complain about you doing that, so the behavior you dislike would stop. How is it a one-sided deal? --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seems to me that you are indeed harassing him, Bugs. You are quite aware that your interactions with him are inflammatory and continue to do so anyways. Stop causing drama and leave him alone and there won't be any problems, as far as you are concerned. ] (]) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}} | |||
| To explain my proposal in a little more detail. There are clear problems with some of CoM's behaviour and have been since basically his first edit. There are also problems with Baseball Bugs' behaviour, particularly with regards to CoM--there are unavoidable similarities here with AllStarEcho/Bluemarine. These problems need to be addressed. Unfortunately, when it's Bugs calling out CoM, the discussion quite neatly swings to being about him (Bugs) and not addressing the problems with CoM's behaviour. In much the same way that ASE's topicban regarding Bluemarine will allow those less attached to the situation to see problematic behaviour without any drama sauce on top, the mutual topicban (and I urge admins to impose it rather than ask for a mutual agreement; the latter is easy to game and far too nebulous. An imposed restriction is unambiguous) is intended to remove the drama caused by Bugs commenting about CoM, permanently, which will allow more clarity when viewing the separate actions of both Baseball Bugs and CoM, and provide more opportunity to find solutions. In other words, the solution proposed quite deliberately avoided dealing with any of the larger issues; the goal is to blow some of the smoke away and let us see whether there is indeed a fire burning and what is feeding it. | |||
| {{Userlinks|Wizmut}} | |||
| Imposing this topicban will very simply remove a source of drama while clarifying what, if any, the actual underlying issues are. Should those underlying issues be resolved--and one way to resolve some of them is ongoing at ArbCom as we speak, via ArbCom clarifying CoM's topicban parameters--I see no reason why this restriction on both users cannot be lifted at some date in the future. → ] ]<small> 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I'm inclined to just implement the restriction as proposed by Roux. I could, and would, do this under terms of the ]. ChildofMidnight is amenable to this arrangement, and Baseball Bugs seemed to agree but then pulled back. Regardless the issue is clearly Obama related and admins have a bit more leeway in that area. | |||
| {{Userlinks|MIHAIL}} | |||
| :But I'd rather get a stronger consensus for an imposed "go to your separate corners" for these two editors. The basic proposal would basically be Roux's above, modified to make the time frame indefinite, with slight wording changes and a note about enforcement: | |||
| {{Userlinks|Magnolia677}} | |||
| ::''Until further notice, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are restricted from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, apart from ArbCom proceedings where ''both'' are named parties. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue.'' | |||
| Dates: | |||
| :I'd like a few other comments on this as I said (and really I'm looking for uninvolved people here ideally), but I'm willing to implement this myself (if someone else wants to that's fine as well), inform the two parties in question, and log it ]. Thoughts? --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Being that this is basically a community sanction, it should be logged at ], if not in both places. '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] '''</sub> 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just do it. It's a totally one-sided deal, because CoM doesn't have to do anything. It's easy to comply with something you're not doing. He's driven me away from the Obama articles, and if I see him editing anything else, I'll have to stay away from that page too. He better stay away from the baseball articles, though, or there will be hell to pay. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The thing that's irksome is that I have to give something up, and he doesn't. I report him for topic-ban violations, and I get punished for it. So here's another idea. He's topic-banned from Obama articles for some stretch of time, I'm not sure how long. I'm effectively prevented from reporting his violations of that topic ban or other rules, since I shouldn't be watching his contribs list, and if I randomly go to an article that he's doing something with (as with the Gates article), then I have to stay away from that article or risk a block. So just extend the no-contact ban to the point where his topic-ban ends. Because at that point, there'll be no reason for any crossover whatsoever, and both of our banishments will be over. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, Bugs. You can edit any articles you please. Just don't talk to or about CoM. And obviously stay off his talkpage. If you see him infringing his topicban, email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. The point of this is not to punish you, it is to remove some stuff that is obscuring the real issues at play, if any. → ] ]<small> 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::No, you're wrong. I cannot edit any article he's working on; it's not practically possible. And you won't be getting any e-mails from me. You can deal with him yourself. I report him for ''possible'' topic-ban violations twice, one of which bought him a block that stuck, and the other block was overturned simply because the admin didn't word it quite right, and this is the thanks I get for it. Similar to the thanks I got for defending[REDACTED] against his ilk back in March. No. You can have him. He's all yours. Have fun! ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Bugs, that is your choice. But please understand that this proposal is like applying an ice pack to a sprained ankle; it's there to reduce the swelling, and after that's gone the doctor can see if any further damage has been caused--and fix it if there is any. There is ''nothing'' more to it than that. → ] ]<small> 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::No, it's ''your'' choice. You've taken away mine. Whatever. There are other fish to fry. But no e-mails. I get enough spam as it is. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''may I have leave to comment, please? I have a relevant opinion which, alas, I cannot safely express here without leave to do so despite being the target of the alleged Arbcom violation under discussion, thanks to a Cache-22 arising from a similar stay-away order. - ] (]) 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::Whatever difference that is likely to make...--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe CoM is right about his claims of censorship. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Editing restriction enacted=== | |||
| I'm going to go ahead and put this into effect. Bugs (somewhat reluctantly) and previously ChildofMidnight are both agreeing to this, but I think we can also think of this as a community-imposed restriction and/or a restriction stemming from the Obama article probation, wherein admins have broader authority to implement measures like these. If there are concerns with how this was implemented I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action, deriving my ability to do so from ]. But there also seems to be consensus from other editors and from the two parties in question, so I don't really think we have a problem. | |||
| 20 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie changes the figure without a source, which is reverted by me. For this article, unsourced changes happen regularly, so I did not take the effort to give Thelittlefaire much explanation. | |||
| I'll leave leave notes on both editors' talk pages announcing the conclusion here, and log the action in a couple of places. Perhaps the thread can stay open for a little while longer to make sure there are no major objections, but after awhile I suggest this be marked resolved and we all move on. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 04:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Bigtimepeace, Obama probation allows individual administrators to implement reasonable sanctions without a full-community-discussion; the community in effect places an amount of trust in allowing them to skip a step. However, Obama probation is not to be used as a means of making something stick if it has a chance of being questionable in the eyes of the community - that would be a serious breach of community trust. You used it exactly how it shouldn't be used. You should have made it plain that this was a sanction you were considering under Obama probation and that you were merely gathering other views in general. This is because remedies under Obama probation may be reversed at the discretion of the imposing administrator; unless specified otherwise, ordinary community sanctions may only be reversed by another community consensus, or via ArbCom channels. This did not happen. Instead, this discussion has all appearances of being one an ordinary community sanction, and Obama probation is just a means to cover yourself if your imposing of this as a community sanction is not acceptable. | |||
| 21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one. | |||
| :To summarise: as you believe that it's ready to be implemented, then it will be as an ordinary community sanction (that's how the discussion appears) - the remedy is not implemented under Obama probation at this time. Consequently, I am reversing the entry you've placed in Obama probation log of sanctions. If your imposing of this as an ordinary community sanction is acceptable, then the restriction itself cannot be reversed at your discretion - it requires another community consensus or ArbCom intervention. Finally, though this is a less major consideration, I hope you have not translated an informal agreement into a formal restriction - it's well known that informal agreements should be tried first, and formal restrictions should be more towards a last resort, so that parties have some leeway. ] (]) 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You might have tried talking to me about it first, especially since you are not an administrator and you've essentially reversed an admin action. If you want it to stand solely as a community sanction, that's fine with me (and I could have reversed the edit on the Obama log myself had you bothered to even try to have a discussion with me), though I saw no problem with approaching the matter ''both'' as a community sanction and an admin sanction under the terms of article probation. I'm not much into rules-lawyering I'm afraid, and my point was to demonstrate that the restriction had support on multiple fronts (including from the editors themselves). The point was that the end result was "overdetermined" as we sometimes say. | |||
| 22 Dec 2024 : I revert, mentioning the selection criteria for this article's sources. Thelittlefaerie reverts, and also reverts an unrelated change. I leave it, and instead start a topic on the ]. | |||
| ::You obviously don't know what I was or am thinking, and as such the idea that "Obama probation is just a means to cover yourself if your imposing of this as a community sanction" or that this was a way "of making something stick if it has a chance of being questionable in the eyes of the community" is something you are making up out of whole cloth. That is not what is happening at all. Nor did I have any intention of reversing the restriction, as it was also imposed in a communal sense. It stands until the community reverses it. Again, you might have asked me about the matter, rather than essentially accusing me of having no idea what I was doing and possibly committing "a serious breach of community trust." You are way, way out of bounds there. | |||
| 26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links) | |||
| ::And yes, this has been translated into a formal restriction, though I was not even the one to propose that. If you want to re-open the discussion about that feel free, but you're the first person to complain, and indeed in the end the two editors agreed to this. I'm disappointed in the process wonkery here, but far more disappointed in the fact that you could not simply leave me a note on my talk page to discuss the issue. I have no idea where you think your authority comes from to undo administrative enforcement, but I don't think you have any. Ironically we could have ended up with the same result if you simply would have left me a note. Please don't do anything further on this without discussing it here. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 07:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase ''"This is your final straw."'' | |||
| :::I'll take responsibility for my actions, including my extraordinarily slow notification, which got mixed up in my tabs. I apologize for the unreasonable delay. | |||
| 7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: ''"why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism"''. In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates. | |||
| :::There a series of problems with putting it both under Obama probation and as a community sanction, particularly all at once. Both Obama probation and community sanctions are community-based; but they are separate - appeals, logging requirements, among other things, are different. Obama probation came about to avoid the need for individual-sanction discussions so trusted members put in whatever they want; community sanctions in the same area were to be used so that they are implemented after involving a full community discussion. | |||
| 16 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie again, this time including in his edit summary ''"And now you are acting like a complete fool. I am DONE WITH THIS. You are just a terrible person."'' and also ''"Either stop or I'll keep making edits."'' This edit was particularly troublesome, not only for the incivility, but because he reverted over a dozen unrelated edits. This was reverted by ]. | |||
| :::Given that the community sanction discussion ran its course, for one thing, it was not made plain that this sanction was considered under Obama probation and this was merely getting some other views. For another thing, it makes no sense for someone who isn't interested in rule-process-wonkery to add more of that process-wonkery, unnecessarily, to an otherwise simple remedy. It's ironic. Why would someone want to log it using Obama probation requirements which are more extensive? Finally, the other dimension Obama probation has is in appeals - that the imposing administrator can grant an appeal, while community sanctions require yet another full community discussion. With all these factors, my point is one can easily think that your actions ''appear'' to lack propriety; I don't personally believe they were deliberate - and you may gather that if you read the last sentence a few times, in the second para of my "lecture" as you called it. | |||
| 17 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie says he ''"could not reach out to you Magnolia677"'' (I can see no such attempt) and reverts again. This again reverts over a dozen unrelated changes, so I do the revert this time, and also try to warn Thelittlefaerie on the talk page and on his user page. | |||
| :::I myself have no issue with the restriction and whether it's formal or informal - nor should anyone else. It's something for the parties to think about themselves. The amount of paperwork and process involved with Obama probation was intentional at the time of its creation; it highlights the difference between a community-based decision, and an individual administrator decision. I would not have known all this, had I not been the very user who proposed and enacted Obama probation for the benefit of the wider community. I knew that the effect of the sanction is not reversed based on your imposing it as a community sanction, and trusted that you would leave it at that. This is not our first encounter. Once again, I apologise about the notification, and even the delay in replying here. ] (]) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue is basically closed now (and as such this is a postmortem), but if you read the discussion above, you'll see I was originally going to enact this under the terms of Obama article probation, and just wanted a little more feedback before I did this (which I said specifically). Then another editor suggested it needed to be logged as a community ban, and perhaps should be logged both as that and as falling under Obama article probation. Because I had initially been only going to do the latter (and asked for feedback in that regard), it seemed a better idea to not switch solely to a community sanction, but to acknowledge that the action was originally going to be take under the terms of Obama article probation. I was clearly following another editor's suggestion, not going out on some weird limb by myself. I also wanted to take full responsibility for implementing this, as I noted above when I said "I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action." Obviously that is exactly what is happening here, as you have been criticizing me, not the collective discussion. The suggestion that there is an appearance of impropriety seems odd to me when I followed the suggestions of other users in terms of the wording of the remedy and the places where it was to be logged, and also in the end still said "I take responsibility for this." You could have clarified what was going on by asking me, rather than adding your own (incorrect) interpretation above without any consultation. | |||
| 22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: ''"I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."'' | |||
| ::::Your talk page posts to Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight muddied the issue. They had both agreed to this, yet you ran over there and said they could come back here and try to undo the whole matter. That's not true, and you could well have made things more complicated by saying that. I'm not sure you even read the above thread carefully enough to know what was going on here, because if you had you would have seen explicit agreement from both of these editors. | |||
| I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience. | |||
| ::::Again, the main issue, which you don't acknowledge, is not ''delayed'' communication ("notification" as you say) with me, but the fact that you took it upon yourself to reverse certain actions without talking to the admin ''first''. That is common courtesy, you are not even an admin, and you have a history of over-stepping your authority and acting like an admin (or an ArbCom clerk) when you are neither of those things. It matters not that you "proposed and enacted Obama probation" (the community actually did the latter - but whatever), and you do not have ownership over that process. If we have another "encounter", please try talking with me first before taking me to the woodshed and reversing an administrative action of mine. Your concerns could have been dealt with by me in about ten minutes and with no acrimony by leaving a few sentence note on my talk page, so in the end you handled this poorly. | |||
| ] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I consider this matter closed and will not comment on this again here, but if you want to discuss it further you can head to my talk page. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to ]-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. ] <sup>]]</sup> 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Perhaps it is better that this be our last encounter. Repeatedly claiming I've interpreted anything incorrectly, when that's not the case, plainly demonstrates how futile communication may have been - your own apparent inability to interpret my plain English above, however convoluted the wording may be at times, really should say it all. It's clear that there has been no change in your own approach in this Obama area since our previous encounter; though I am not so foolish as to provoke it further with details of that history. Your accusation that I muddied the issues by bringing up potential issues with it at the parties talk pages (let alone here) is baseless. I'm fully aware of the circumstances under which both parties agreed; and the circumstances under which this became a formal restriction. That said, I will be more open to an idea because I don't mind talking to competent admins before-hand - especially those who are actually able to handle criticism without further exacerbating a situation. | |||
| ::It does seem like this could have gone to ]. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from ]. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello! '''Thelittlefaerie''' speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. ] (]) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this. | |||
| ::::I think if you can apologise and agree to not make ] against other editors again, and refrain from ] (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek ]. | |||
| ::::Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M. | |||
| :::::Thank you, | |||
| :::::'''Thelittlefaerie''' ] (]) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page ] (]) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) ] (]) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * '''Update''': Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Swagsgod == | |||
| :::::All that said, it seems that there are a handful of administrators who stubbornly insist they are taking enough care (and steps) to avoid troubling perceptions by others - obviously, it just may so happen that what they think does not equal reality. I can now understand why the number of troubling allegations made about administrators in general are increasing, with many in the past couple of days alone. My only concern is that perhaps the entire bunch is being blamed for the issues with a handful. I'm done here. ] (]) 06:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result={{NAC}} {{u|Swagsgod}} blocked and TPA revoked. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can ] please be swiftly blocked? They are constantly creating inappropriate pages. They are listed at AIV, but the stream of new pages continues quite rapidly. ] (]) 12:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking into it. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have been off for a few days but I see, as usual, ChildofMidnight name-drops me once again. This is a continuing pattern, most recently seen in a topic at Bigtimepeace's talk page (]) where I expressed disappointment that CoM's block did not stand. This user employs either one of two tactics; #1 is to name-drop when the other person has not even been involved in the current situation, as above, or #2 does the vague and nebulous call for "disruptive and persistent policy violators" to be banned. When asked, by myself or others, to provide diffs and evidence to support such a claim, CoM either backs away completely or demands that the other person be the one to do the digging. I'm not sure in what Bizarro-world one expects/demands the accused to provide the evidence that damns them, but whatever. | |||
| ::Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming: | |||
| ::*{{tq| Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests}} | |||
| ::etc. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by {{ping|Fram}}). Let me know if I have missed anything. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). ] (]) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Gone. —] (]) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as {{tq|Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis}} was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? ] (]) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? ] (]) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source == | |||
| This user is obviously having serious behavioral issues with a wide variety of other users, some so acrimonious as to warrant ArbCom intervention i.e. (CoM vs. Bugs, CoM vs. Scjessey, CoM vs. Wikidemon). It seems that ChildofMidnight is seeking to add more and more users to this list (i.e. myself and NeutralHomer, tho I haven't the slightest idea what the context is of the latter), some sort of "these are the meanie wikistalkers, keep them away!" shtick. Perhaps the solution to a problem of one user having a problem with many users is to sanction the one rather than creating more and more specialized one-to-one relationship restrictions. Investigate the source of the problem, not the branches. ] (]) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I too share concerns with both the method and the wisdom of adding to the list of editors who are prohibited from interactions with this editor after having run-ins with him. Having created and maintained a number of the Obama article probation pages following Ncmvocalist's initial bold step of creating the community general sanction, I think the inclusion criteria for logging sanctions has been very loose to date: many of the 100+ on the list were blocked or banned on general principles, not with reference to sanctions. On the other hand, many who were sanctioned under probation did not make the list. Shall we add to the list all 30+ others who have exchanged mutual accusations of bad faith with this editor? That would remove at least one and possibly more of the administrators on this thread, one or more of the Arbcom members, and the co-founder of Misplaced Pages... more or less anyone who has tried to deal with the problem. To what end? What is the likelihood that removing involved parties will lead to a solution? Do you really think that if you forbid from interaction those whose patience has run out in favor of your own personal efforts to teach and have patience, you're really going to have a better result trying to reform this editor than all the others who have tried? I am a party to this latest incident, not of my own choice. Please let me know if I am free to discuss that here, and if not, please take this to Arbcom or some other forum where all of the interested parties are free to speak.] (]) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The diffs at the top of the thread speak for themselves. Numerous admins have asked the editor to cease the inappropriate behavior for months. Stalking, harassment and personal attacks are unacceptable, and I hope that this solution will remedy the problem. ] (]) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note that by commenting directly about Bugs, you have just fallen afoul of the editing restriction enacted by Bigtimepeace. An admin should block you for that. → ] ]<small> 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::As this is an active discussion about editing restrictions that involve me it's quite reasonable and only fair that I be allowed to comment. As the restrictions have now been put in place I support the discussion being archived so we can all move forward. But if editors wish to discuss it further, then I think I am allowed to respond, don't you? ] (]) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. The ban was enacted, it is in effect. You are no longer permitted to talk to or about Baseball Bugs anywhere on Misplaced Pages, bar an ArbCom case. → ] ]<small> 05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::(before ec) Please note - I've mentioned this issue, and also my query over my own ability to comment on it, before Arbcom. - ] (]) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Roux, ChildofMidnight is permitted to discuss it further until this discussion is closed - the same goes for Baseball Bugs. No administrator is foolish enough to inflexibly enforce it in the very same discussion. However, if there are no objections from either regarding the enactment of the restriction, or on the restriction itself, then there is no basis to keep this discussion open for any longer. ] (]) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The following IP Editor(s) have been making continuous changes to the flags on the Islamic State of Iraq page without any sources to backup their claims, when the changes are reverted, they just go back and revert the revert and still provide no source, thus causing what I believe to be an unnecessary disruption. | |||
| ::CoM, I see 7 diffs in regards to Baseball Bugs. Can you either provide evidence to back the ''"Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me"'' claim, or, y'know, stop making such a claim? ] (]) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is 7 not enough? He's been warned repeatedly by at least three different admins and promised on at least two different occasions to cease the offending behavior. Netural Homer has also been asked on several occasions to refrain from baiting me and making unconstructive additions to threads where I'm involved. The diffs are in his talk page history. The concern about users teaming up, stalking and harassing an editor they disagree with is serious and legitimate. If this particular problem with this editor can be resolved, that's a good start and I'm hopeful that things will improve. There are no editing restrictions involved other than not being allowed to talk to or about me. They are still allowed to take any concerns that they have about my editing to an admin via e-mail. ] (]) 22:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not talking about Bugs; I actually agree that he has done much to exacerbate the situation, esp with this pedantic "apologize to meeeee!" stuff. What I'm angling for here is essentially a "put up or shut up" with the accusations-without-proof stuff. I may weigh in at ArbCom amendments and clarifications and at AN/I, and seeing your name pop up in article edits where it isn't supposed to be popping up, but that certainly is not, quote, being a "disruptive and persistent policy violator". That's the sorta thing that needs to stop. ] (]) 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| As an addendum, I honestly find the entire concept of "UserX and UserY cannot interact" as a permissible sanction to be a bit retarded. If some issue has reached a point where users have to be separated like a couple of brawling schoolboys, then just straight out block one or both for a period of time. Seriously, how much time has been wasted over the years in AN/I, ArbCom Clarification, etc...trying to clarify the Rules of Engagement for such sanctions, as the sides poke and prod what is and isn't allowed? I'd like to see this particular "remedy" removed from ArbCom's arsenal. ] (]) 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the only gaming that happens is because admins let it happen. The ban is simple: no talking about or to each other. Period. It's about as black-and-white as you can possibly get. → ] ]<small> 05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Gaming occurs either because administrators are unaware that it's happening, or they let it happen because they're reluctant to enforce it. ] (]) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| We're quite done here now, and I'm archiving the discussion. The restriction preventing ChildofMidnight and Baseball Bugs from talking with or about one another on-wiki has been enacted as a community sanction and logged ]. It is absolutely in effect at this point, and violations by either party will result in blocks from this moment forward—no ands, ifs, or buts (or "ors"). ChildofMidnight did indirectly comment about Baseball Bugs above after the sanction was officially enacted, but the thread here was still open and issues were being debated so I don't see this as a violation or as blockworthy. Let's all move on to more productive venues, and hope that the restriction imposed here is ultimately good for both editors and for the community. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 07:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == 142.190.62.131 == | |||
| == Alleged incivility and soapboxing by ] == | |||
| Long-term abuse possible proxy vandal operating out of Alabama, vandalism-only account. Almost all edits to their talk page before the three-year-block are warnings or include Huggle tags(see tak page hist). The reason I'm reporting this user on ANI instead of AVI, is because of the user continuing to vandalize Misplaced Pages after blocks that sometimes took years to expire, one time even two years, which might fall under chronic intractable behavioral problems. This user is currently blocked for 3 years after I already reported them at AVI, but will likely continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages again after the block. This user has been vandalizing Misplaced Pages since 2020. The IP is from Alabama and belongs to a company named "Southern Light, LLC". I don't know if the user is actually operating out of Alabama, or if they are using a proxy. I've seen multiple IPs from the "142" range that are vandalizing Misplaced Pages or contributing unconstructively, although I don't think they have much to do with this user. Their edits to the page "Athenian democracy" didn't get reverted for over two years. Three of their edits got deleted, including their first edit. ] (]) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <small>Moved from AN ]] 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| : IP addresses generally do not correlate to a person. In most cases, they are randomly assigned to a customer on that ], then cycle around to another random customer. If there's a long history of petty vandalism, it could potentially be a school, library, public transportation, or some other shared IP with lots of users. Every so often, I think, "I should write an intro to IP addresses", but the best I've come up with yet is ]. And while there are peer-to-peer proxies and VPNs all over the place, there's generally little reason for normal users get worried about them. ] (]) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles == | |||
| {{anchor|Keepscases}} | |||
| {{atop|result=This situation looks resolved. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{hidden|header=Copy-pasted RfA thread|content=#'''Oppose''' User scrubbed offensive userboxes, including "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" directed at religious folks, in hopes of passing this RfA. ] (]) | |||
| An IP range user ({{vandal|2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321}}) has been adding contentious or poorly sourced material to a variety of articles related to Canadian politics (including ]s). I haven't been able to warn them as the IP changes frequently but did let them know why I reverted their additions. They've also been causing problems in other articles with unreliable sources or poor information . | |||
| ... | |||
| #I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale. ] ] 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:Flimsy? You're not even taking a stand one way or the other, so you may want to dismount that giant ''equus caballus'' of yours. ] (]) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::He has just yet to make up his mind. He is stating that in order to convince him to oppose he will need a more solid argument.--]''' | ] 02:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Like Gordon said, I'm ] reviewing this candidate, making sure I have a good all-around perspective in them. Better than automatically opposing someone for their beliefs. ] ] 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::If you think anyone's being opposed for his beliefs, you need to work on your reading comprehension. ] (]) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::No, it's obvious that you've used RFA as your soapbox against atheism. Perhaps you should try and review the candidate's contributions and their article work to give you a better idea of what kind of an admin they would be instead of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). ] ] 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::Oh? Surely, then, you can provide an example of a time when I've taken issue with atheism itself, as opposed to elitist and confrontational attitudes that make someone of any religious persuasion (or lack thereof) look awful. I'll wait. ] (]) 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::In ], you go as far as to bar good-faith users of WikiProject Atheism from becoming administrators due to a few users carrying a certain userbox. While not a bias against atheism per se, it shows that you have an unacceptable predisposition against good-faith users who are interested in the subject of atheism. ] ] 02:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::The group in question proudly displays that userbox on its page to this day. I do not trust anyone who is associated with such a hateful group; the religious preferences of such a person are irrelevant. ] (]) 02:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::: When you see a candidate using an atheism userbox you instantly infer that they are going to act inappropriately and cannot be trusted. Please please please explain in detail why this is. I do not like these userboxes, but boxes do not make the candidate. You are going out of your way to check if the candidate has at one point in time had an atheism related userbox. Can you also please explain why this is? I do not wish to sound mean, but I am utterly puzzled. --]''' | ] 02:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::Sure--because I simply can't fathom how any responsible, respectful, and thoughtful individual--the sort of person I want to see promoted to administrator--would '''ever''' display such a userbox, or associate with a group who did. For anyone who paints me as anti-atheist--find me any other userbox, religious or otherwise, that is so intentionally disrespectful towards other Misplaced Pages users, and I will enthusiastically oppose its proponents with the same vigor you've all come to know and love me for. ] (]) 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::You are attacking a specific subset of editors with a specific belief. I can't see how that isn't worse than displaying a few pixels on one's userpage. ] ]</font> 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::I only agree with you if by "belief" you mean "belief that being condescending and confrontational towards other users is a 'cool' thing to do". ] (]) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::: (edit conflict) I'm not trying to stop you doing so; I knew before this argument. I just gave you advice on other ways to review RFA candidates. You've also been told by many editors that your stereotypes are just as, if not more offensive that said userboxes. ] ] 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::: (ec) No, by belief I mean atheism. Hate/smugness between people of different groups happens everywhere. And I don't see you opposing based on this "condescending and confrontational" from any other belief than atheism. Again, Rfa is not your soapbox. ] ]</font> 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| # | |||
| Copied from . — ] (]|]) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| :This doesn't belong here. Are you proposing a ban? '''] (])''' 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| ::I am helping to expose what this particular user is doing, to a larger audience than ]. I do not find that such behavior is consistent with building an encyclopedia, therefore the user is not ], and should consequently be banned, or at least blocked. — ] (]|]) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| ::: A link is sufficient. I recommend removing the text as it's distracting and will likely lead to more admins ignoring this than paying attention. Also, may I recommend ]? -- ] (]) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| The user does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia productively. ] (]) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Tried notifying them for what that's worth. ] (]) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Keepscases makes the comments above that Anyone associated with Atheism is a member of a "hateful group". He states that anyone who is an atheist, and not ashamed of it is a "condescending and confrontational" person. It can be read from other comments that Atheism is not a 'belief' to be respected like a religion is. How much of this Dominionism-based disruption and bad faith are we expected to endure here? By his logic, I should oppose every single RfA candidate who displays, or has ever displayed a userbox identifying membership in a faith in an irreverent, or humorous, or even sarcastic, manner. That will certainly reduce the number of candidates if it catches on. ] (]) 05:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Again, why is this here? No, asking why was it at ANI but I think the point was clear nonetheless. -- ] (]) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Let me be more specific. He's been here almost two years. So why should his very recent behavior in two RFAs be justification for a complete ban as opposed to a discussion at WPT:RFA about limiting his discussion at RFAs? -- ] (]) 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::As of about four days ago (due to toolserver replag), 54.90% of this user's edits were in the Misplaced Pages namespace, with eight of the top ten edited pages in that namespace being related to RfA and all of the edits in Misplaced Pages talk namespace being related to RfA. — ] (]|]) 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Setting aside the minor issue of what the right venue for discussion is, a ban from RfA would sound like the appropriate measure to me. Looking at his contributions, I have a feeling he's been running a very long, very successful troll, knowing that Misplaced Pages has a high proportion of atheists and that tempers run high on RfAs. The trolling could be motivated by actual hatred for atheists, or he could just be doing it for, as they say, the lulz. But one thing that is clear is that these opposes do not contribute to the discussion at RfA, they undermine it. ] (]) 09:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Could I please get some help here?''' IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using {{IP user|2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07}} | |||
| ::::If only you were as concerned about the reasons why administrator hopefuls might think disrespectful and confrontational attitudes are acceptable, as you are with the user who thinks such attitudes aren't compatible with adminship. When people like you claim that it's the jerks who are being persecuted and suggest that it's me who's the hateful one, I feel like I'm in Bizarro World. ] (]) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is {{confirmed}} block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been for disruption.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks very much, ]. And as well? ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks {{U|Paul Erik}}, I got that /64 as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you! ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Abusive user == | |||
| Collapsed long copy-paste ] (]) 06:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Moved from the ]. Courtesy link: {{user|Opolito}}, filed by {{user|Shaggydan}}, moved by ] (]) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| User Opolito is flagging users, including me, for vandalism when there is no vandalism. Who is able to restrict his account and remove his warnings and how do I bring this to their attention? ] (]) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This should be at ANI if it is a ban discussion.....'''] (])''' 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Why? I think ban discussions are more appropriate here than at the shitstorm that is ANI. See previous discussion on this here: ]. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure whether or not this is ''Incivility and soapboxing'', the user has a right to express his opinion. However, there are some points that are for sure: | |||
| :@]. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. ] (]|]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #Keepscases's comments do not address individual candidates, the point of RfA | |||
| :{{ping|Shaggydan}} - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at , I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. ] ] 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #Keepscases's comments have incited much conflict | |||
| ::{{ping|Shaggydan}} Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. ] (]) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #Keepscases asks many "unique" questions on RfA | |||
| :::@] Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? ] (]) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #The user has done nothing but do this lately | |||
| ::::You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with ''actual'' personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism.}} You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? ] (]) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement. | |||
| :I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many ]s are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name. | |||
| :Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account. | |||
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith. | |||
| :He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone. | |||
| :I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all." | |||
| :Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so." | |||
| :29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam. | |||
| :On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)" | |||
| :These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit. | |||
| :I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. ] (]) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information == | |||
| ] ]</font> 16:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|93.204.189.212}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06}} | |||
| Those three accounts all appear to be the same person, who is doing mass removal of information with minimal to no notes. I have reverted some of their edits on ] (because they removed information that I added and sourced myself), but user . After quickly going through their other edits, it doesn't appear they are making any constructive edits. I'd love some help dealing with this issue.--] ] 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (Begin random lurker's opinion...) I have no dog in this fight, and no opinion one way or the other on what should be done. However, I think it's important to point out that the issue Keepscases seems to have is not with Atheists per se, but rather with the userbox that says "Keep your imaginary friends to yourself". The reason he brought it up at the RFA is that the candidate seems to have recently removed it from his userpage, which would appear on the surface to be an attempt to "cover up" something that would potentially have a negative impact on the RFA (as opposed to removing it because one no longer agrees with the sentiment expressed). Could he have argued his point more tactfully? Sure...but I think it's important to note that the disagreement seems to have its source in how the userbox was phrased rather than the actual sentiment behind it. ] (]) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, it's seems ] supports your theory. He should just file an MfD and get the box deleted if he hates it so much. -- ] (]) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not an advocate of censorship. I think users should be able to create and display any userboxes they wish, but any user who thinks posting a disrespectful userbox is a good idea is an unsuitable candidate. ] (]) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I'm increduluous that people are actually proposing to ban me. I'm not doing anything wrong. Your beef should be with people who insist my long-standing, very sincere opinions are not valid...most of whom blatantly misrepresent said opinions to try and undermine my credibility. I just now supported an atheist who appears to have no connections to publicly-displayed elitism and hatefulness, and I have done so in the past. ] (]) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That does not excuse your long history of disruption. ] ]</font> 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All I do is post my vote, guy, but don't expect me to stay quiet if people want to argue I don't have the right. ] (]) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The right to do what? What you're doing is basically the definition of disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Even if all you were doing was fighting against a userbox (in which case you wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Tedder), RfA is not the venue to fight against a userbox. ] (]) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't fight against any userbox, I oppose candidates who think it's a good idea to display it. I do not think any such user should represent Misplaced Pages in any position of power, "no big deal" be damned. I don't disrupt anything. All I do is cast my vote and then defend myself against people who attack me for it. ] (]) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Nineteen edits alone to ], seventeen edits to ], ten edits to ]. These are just from the past couple weeks; the pattern has been evident for a long, long time. How many "keepscases oppose" threads are we gonna start? When someone generates as much mass drama as he does, it's clear whether they are a net positive or a net negative to the project, regardless of motivation. '''Highly support''' a topic ban from RfA or related threads. ] | ] 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(ECx7)Really? You are surprised that few other editors are voicing support for your bigotry? You're actively discriminating against a large, and growing, group of people, based on their beliefs. This is exactly the same as discriminating against the Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, seventh day Adventists, southern baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, protestants or any other christian group which proselytizes. I don't see you doing that; I see the opposite. Why should we keep around someone whose attitude is 'anyone who isn't a christian shouldn't be an admin, especially people who think really differently than I do about something which has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Perhaps it's you who should be banned, for completely misrepresenting my beliefs and actions. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. I defy you to show me one edit in which I say there is. ] (]) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Their edits at Gerard Butler don't look unreasonable to me, trimming information that, while sourced, is tangential at best to the subject of the article. ] (]) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support a topic ban''' Besides the issue of having almost all of your edits to RfA religion based, you also repeatedly make inane edits such as these . This is 100% unproductive and does nothing but incite conflict. ] ]</font> 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Right, because the idea of actually making a potential administrator think about something new/unexpected, and give voters a little insight into his or her personality/demeanor, is grounds for a ban. Tell me, exactly what conflict did the edits you mention bring about? ] (]) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::they didnt yet bring conflict but they were definitely a little silly and not really relevent to his duties as an admin. usually the questions show how they would interpret policy and improve Misplaced Pages nad not how they would cast a movie about Misplaced Pages!! Smith Jones 00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP == | |||
| ::::(ec)Right as always, SJ! Let's slay these misconceptions about a Misplaced Pages movie! ] (]) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :::I think if you go through my questions, you'll find plenty of instances in which candidates were sincerely appreciative for the opportunity to answer them and/or they were helpful in voters' decision-making. The one candidate chose not to answer my movie question, and you know what? Everything was fine. There was no drama. ] (]) 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Edit summary revdel'd and {{noping2|GreatLeader1945}} blocked for one week for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)::Thats a fair point, and I agree wthat you dont deserve to be sanctioned because of THAT (I dont know about the other things too much) but i can see how that might be constured as being part of a pattern of mocking behavior. you have to see this from evryones perspective since this a community-oriented and circumobular project which sometimes things that you thing are ] are actually being seen as violating ] due to too much sarcasm or Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| <s> | |||
| ::'''Now supporting a full ban''' Keepscases was already blocked indefinitely for asking blatant, inane questions and was warned. See here for examples. And he still continues to this day. I don't know what is going on, does he not get it or is he deliberately trying to troll? He clearly still hasn't got a clue and given his attack against Thurnax, it isn't likely he will get one anytime soon. Given that his edits to articles are all minor changes, and his inane posts at the Help Desk recently, I don't see that this user will turn around and go do something productive if he is banned from RfA alone. ] ]</font> 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</s> Per below ] ]</font> 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly what "attack against Thurnax" are you referring to? He accused me of something I've never done. As for my "inane posts at the Help Desk", I posted there looking to learn something. That is inappropriate why? ] (]) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Seems like a no brainer to me.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry to hear that, as the things I'm being accused of are easily disproven. ] (]) 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::How are they disproven? Can you explain, please?--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been explaining throughout these discussions. The main accusations against me seem to be that I am prejudiced against atheists and that I cause drama. Neither are true. ] (]) 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I supposed I'm a bit biased (seeing as I was an active participant in the argument at Alan16's RFA), but I don't see Keepscases as a positive contributor. ] ] 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, we've given him/her way too many chances. Like Kmweber and DougsTech, people who troll RFA should be topic banned. ] ] 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Outside views will be the judge of that.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Apologies if this is the incorrect location, ] is a BLP violation and may need redacting. ] (]) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Support a topic ban. RfA is just like any other topic area. If an otherwise productive editor is unable to participate positively in one topic area, we can and should remove them. ] (]) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</s> See 'vote' below. ] (]) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Per ], you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. ] (]/]) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Protonk, it may actually be worth your time looking at the section below.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::Thanks, I've made a note of that. ] (]) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::Well, this thread wasn't an official topic-ban thread. For there to be a discrete community-sanctioned ban, we need an obvious consensus, not the willy-nilly discussion above. However, you obviously may participate as you see fit. ] | ] 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == revoke TPA for ]? == | |||
| ===RfC?=== | |||
| {{atop | |||
| I'm just reiterating this outside of my comment in the oppose section, as What we need at this point is not an ANI thread, but an RfC. At the moment, this is just a cacophony of various archives, failed proposals, yelling at each other, and hard feelings. I think that we need to organize this data into an RfC, which would be much more likely to return a result than here. <small>(] · ]) · ] · </small> 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Done. ] (]/]) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Given there has been no consensus here for an admin to do anything, an RfC might be a helpful next step. This said, so far I see no clear consensus that within an RfA, soapboxy questions, alikened across many RfAs, should be kept out of the discussion or otherwise banned. ] (]) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ::You may find the RfC at ]. — ] (]|]) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal for Keepscases topic ban from RfA === | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| There is no consensus for this. ] (]) 13:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Might as well officially figure out if this has community support. | |||
| Proposal: {{User3|Keepscases}} is topic-banned from ]-related pages. | |||
| ====Support==== | |||
| #'''Support''' as nominator. My and a quick look at Keepscases contribution history, along with the above thread, should be sufficient. ] | ] 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. Comparing this to ]: While DougsTech's opposes are not very constructive, they at least don't cause problems, and after all, he is entitled to his opinion. Though I find opposing based on atheist userboxes to be groundless, Keepscases does have a right to his opinion (an not unreasonable argument could be made that they are inflammatory), but asking such questions bites the candidates and does adversely affect the RfA. (Sorry this was poorly worded, with so many negatives.) -- ] ] ] ] ♠ 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' Definitely. All that is done here is disruptive. ] ] 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' as above. Textbook case of ]. ] (]) 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' giving Keepscases a change to be productive outside rfa. ] ]</font> 01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' Enough. This is not because he is attacking atheism, it is because he has aside from this constant disruption. \ ] / {]} 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' I haven't been involved in the discussion, but I've seen enough. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">]</span> <sup>(])</sup> 01:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Suppport''' Even though I think that some people in this discussion have had a knee-jerk reaction against "anti-atheism", when in my opinion the template isn't pro-atheism, it's anti-faith. But RfA is not the place to bring up that argument. Banning the editor from an area where they are causing routine disruption is both appropriate and fair, it allows them to edit constructively elsewhere if they choose to and also to start or participate in an MfD of the userbox they dislike so much. -- ''']]''' 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Strong Support''', although repetition of such behavior after being blocked for it deserves a stronger remedy (that is, I prefer the proposal below to this one). Keepscases' disruptive behavior at ] has gone on for far too long. — ] (]|]) 02:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' based on the diffs provided by Mythdon down below in the ''This is distracting to the above, and premature.'' collapsed discussion. TIMMEH! '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] '''</sub> 03:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:Did my providing of diffs make your investigation easy? --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 03:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::It certainly helped. '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] '''</sub> 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Good! I hope it's helping the other users. I'm glad I took the time to provide that much evidence. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 03:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #Agree that behavior at RfA thus far has been disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban. –''']''' | ] 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:Kindly provide one edit of mine you believe was "disruptive" and not merely a statement of my opinion and/or a defense/clarification resulting from an attack on me. ] (]) 04:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::A list of diffs of your behavior is ]. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::And none of them support the allegation. If you disagree, be specific. ] (]) 05:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::. "Who would you tell?" What has that got to do with anything? . Voting so the numbers look pretty is not disruptive? is disruptive - if they are a competent editor, there age is irrelevant. . And there are plenty more. And thanks to ''Mythdon'' for the list of diffs. ] (]) 15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::Heh--if you're proposing that anyone who makes light-hearted or seemingly frivolous edits should be banned, be forewarned that you'd be taking out a veritable all-star team of Misplaced Pages users. The edits you provide weren't disruptive anyway. ] (]) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::If you think "Who would you tell?" is a productive question, and one which would decide whether to vote for them or not, then you should certainly not be allowed to vote again. If you did this sort of thing once in a while, then it would be fine, but you don't. This isn't one or two frivolous remarks, it is a few dozen. ] (]) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::A question like that can be very useful to understand someone's personality/character/demeanor. Have you ever been to a job interview? Anyway, I am allowed to ask whatever questions I wish. ] (]) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::Yes I have. And however you try to defend it, that is a pointless question that helps you judge them not at all. ] (]) 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::I encourage you to criticize questions with the same fervor when you're interviewing for jobs. It will get you far. ] (]) 15:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' Well, I certainly support it, to the surprise of no one who's seen my comments at the related RfAs. Please understand that merely displaying a userbox that simply and politely states that one is a member of the Athiest Wikigroup is enough to disqualify an admin candidate in his view. Why? Because there are apparently some ''other'' atheist userboxes he doesn't like. But rather than try and delete them, he seeks to ban any and all self-declaring atheists from adminship, per ]. ''Anyone'' who self-declares as a non-believer therefore becomes non-admissible. It's prejudice. It's intolerance. I look south from our border and see this kind of religious fundamentalism ruining a country I used to have respect for: I don't want it infecting this project. thanks, ] (]) 03:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:May I just add that ] expressly prohibits "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." ] (]) 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::I would never, *never* "seek to ban any and all self-declaring atheists from adminship". Your contempt of me based on things I would never do is becoming tiresome. ] (]) 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #If the user can't be indefinitely blocked, then a topic ban should certainly be done. This disruption can not be tolerated, and it is much worse than DougsTech ever was. I support a topic ban, though I would prefer an indefinite block. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:All I do is vote. Why do you fault me for the disruption? I have a right to believe that offensive userboxes show a candidate has no business representing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::Whether you believe that is irrelevant. In RfA, you're suppose to participate based on the behavior of the candidate, but more importantly, whether they'll abuse the tools or not. Comments there are suppose to be relevant to the candidates qualifications for adminship. You are not doing that. Instead of asking nonsense questions, you should be asking things like "how would you have closed this AfD?", or "what is your understanding of this policy?". Those are the questions you're supposed to be asking, but those are just examples. If you look through previous RfA's you'll find the questions you should be asking. Instead of doing that, you ask "Kindly demonstrate your grammar skills by explaining at least one way Quadell's nomination could be improved. ", and "Were these definitions provided by you? ". And as for your comments in the "support"/"oppose" sections, instead of making comments like "I do not agree with this user's positions on singular 'they', usage of quotation marks, and spacing between sentences. ", you should be explaining whether or not the candidate will abuse the tools and whether or not the candidate behaves consistently. You have a right to your opinions, but to express the opinions you are expressing at RfA is disruptive and irrelevant to the candidate. Let me be as clear as possible here: Your comments are disruptive to RfA, and it is best to ban you from all RfA participation to prevent further disruption. Until you learn your lesson, you just can't be at RfA. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::It is telling that you have to bring up things that have nothing to do with this discussion in order to try and appear that you're "right". But--those questions were asked for specific reasons and were appreciated by the users in question, and shame on you for trying to tell me what my voting criteria should be (would you like to live in a country that did that?) ] (]) 04:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::I am not telling you how to vote. I am telling you to vote within the relevance to the candidate, and you should do the same when asking questions. Whether or not the candidate appreciated the questions is irrelevant, as they disrupt the RfA. Your participation is no better than the participation of the now blocked DougsTech. After all, There was a discussion about whether to topic ban DougsTech, and let me tell you that that user didn't get nearly as much support as you are getting for such a ban at this rate. DougsTech didn't get topic banned, but did later get blocked. Let me tell you that if I were an administrator, and if I saw you engaging in this behavior, I would block you, no questions asked. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''', as Tan is predictably on the money here. Alternative option, allow Keepscases to vote and ask questions, but only by proxy of a crat (who will then obviously recuse from closing or voting themselevs) who must approve of the question/vote rationale in order to vet it for drama-inducement. In six months, revisit topicban to see if Keepscases can be trusted to edit on their own at RfA without creating drama. → ] ]<small> 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| #:I don't think that will work. Having somebody vote for the user will not be a good idea. I think the user should learn on their own. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 03:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' Per my above, for the sake of transparency. Also, note Tan's important comment below. The alternative to this is that the community go through this rigmarole ''each and every time'' Keepscases feels like disrupting an RfA. We eventually learned our lesson w/ Kurt and RfA was better off for it. This is analogous. ] (]) 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:I have the right to vote based on my criteria that I have made perfectly clear time and time again. Why do you blame me for the disruption, and not the users who attack me for my opinion, usually twisting my words to make me appear anti-atheist? Why am I the bad guy, Protonk? ] (]) 04:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #Keepscases' votes have always struck me as single-minded and POINTy. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:"POINTy" implies that I am intentionally disrupting Misplaced Pages. I am not. I vote based on the fact that I think users who select intentionally offensive userboxes have no business being administrators. ] (]) 04:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::Whether you are intentionally doing this is irrelevant at this point. You have a right to your opinions, but that opinion is not an opinion that you should be expressing at RfA. If I was an administrator, let me assure you that I would block you. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Good to know; see you at your future RfA. ] (]) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::You won't be there, because if I see you there, and if you are topic banned, you'll be reported, period. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::I don't plan on being banned, as I'm not doing anything wrong. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this "people who don't respect Keepscases" convention gets to decide my fate. ] (]) 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::You don't have to plan on getting banned, because the community has power on Misplaced Pages. They can actually decide your "fate" by a simple majority ], which you seem to find hard to believe based on your recent comment. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::Unfortunately for you, this is not a representative cross-section of the Misplaced Pages community. This is a bunch of people who hate me in here, most of whom completely misrepresent my views and actions. A lynch mob alone can't get someone banned here. ] (]) 05:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::These people in this discussion have absolute power to direct you out of further participation in any RfA, and have the power to tell an administrator "please block", and that administrator will act fast, and will ask you no questions. A possible future block for a violation will prove this point. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::And yet, as much as it may pain you to hear this, I have exactly the same rights as a current Misplaced Pages user as you do, so you may want to get off your high horse, quit flexing your cyber-muscles, and go away. At some point, Mythdon, when you keep sounding off on every comment that I make anywhere, you have to understand it is you who is responsible for the drama. ] (]) 05:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::Actually, we're both responsible for this drama. If you respond, you have fault. If I respond, I have fault. Not all users have the same rights. Some users are placed under editing restrictions, and you're just about ready to get a restriction when a user closes this as successful. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::The extent to which you're fantasizing that I get blocked is more than a little scary. ] (]) 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::It will happen should you violate your future topic ban, if it becomes effective. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::::Could you just have your orgasm already and go away? ] (]) 05:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::I am not going away until this is done, and when it's done, your participation at RfA is over. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #(ec x3) While I 'get' that Keepscases claims to only object to outspoken Atheists, i.e., only those who make public their view that people of faith believe in fairy tales, this to me is a sign not of his view that they should be 'respectful', but of an expectation that they should be all out deferential, and that by his actions he is actively working toward a 'chilling effect' against atheists. It is that subversion of WP, and the fact that he's voted against non-offending atheists as well, that leads me to this vote. He wants the atheists to shut up, keep wuiet, and stop speaking out. Well, once theyv'e come for all the atheists, who will they come for next, and will anyoen be left to speak up for me when he, and his, come for me? ] (]) 04:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:I've been on Misplaced Pages for years, and I'm sorry, but that is the single dumbest thing I have ever seen posted. I think people who like offensive userboxes are unsuitable for adminship, and you're comparing me to Hitler. ] (]) 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::Ah. You saw my Jewish Userbox, and now try to bait me by suggesting a Jew made a Hitler comparison. I see what you did there. Very shallow and transparent. I like the attempt to turn the persecutor into the persecuted by sugggesting a persecuted is now immorally behaving like ''his''persecutor of old. Very Interesting. And a transparent bid to someone get my vote ignored. Nice try. ] (]) 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Get over yourself. Your little statement there was based on an easily-recognizable quotation about Nazi Germany. It sucks when you try and put one over on someone and fail, huh? ] (]) 05:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::What the fuck are you going on about? You said I compared you to Hitler, I did no such thing. I used an old quote about the cumulative effect of giving in to a Chilling Effect. That it came out of the Nazi era is thoroughly irrelevant to my point. IF you really think that's me saying your Hitler, let me say it this way: My family ran from Hitler. And you sir are no Adolf Hitler. You're a paranoid little man, afraid that if you are exposed to too many new ideas, you may have to actually face them and think about them. I never, in any way, compared you to Hitler. Get over yourself. I stand by my assertion: Not content to insult ONE set of beliefs, you now are either looking for bigger fish, or so defensive that you're now lashing out at anyone NOT LIKE YOU. Bigot. ] (]) 05:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::You're just making an ass out of yourself now. Feel free to continue if you like. Note to all: I don't want this. I'm being compared to Nazis by someone who first denies it and then claims I'm a bigot for bringing it up. All I want to do is oppose RfAs from users who like offensive userboxes. ] (]) 05:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::And http://en.wikipedia.org/First_they_came... is required reading for anyone who might buy this bullshit that ThuranX wasn't comparing me to the Nazis. ] (]) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::]. Read it. That is my intent by that, and you know it. That it happens to make you look like a Nazi is your own conscience telling you something. YOu seek to make a class of people shut up and hide their presence. I simply pointed out what will happen when you're done with that group. That you suddenly see in that statement a comparison between your attitude and that of that Nazis is entirely of your own inference, not my implication. That you suddenly choose to accuse a Jewish Editor of Godwin'ing this, hoping for the Irony points, just shows how desperate you are. Let me help you out. this is only 6 to 12 hours from a SNOW closing, especially given your tactic for antagonizing every single voter, which is get a different campaign of intimidation. ] (]) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::But yet all you're going to get is either a block or a topic ban from RfA. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::Does it make you feel powerful to pretend you're in control here? ] (]) 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::We the community are in control as one. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::Thuran, the "bigot" comment was blockworthy, so please don't repeat anything like it. And I suggest all of you end this line of discussion right now, because it's headed nowhere fast. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 05:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' Absolutely. →<font style="color:black">'''javért'''</font> <sup>]</sup> 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:Good word! That word is what I think too. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' I really thought I was going to oppose this; even though Keepscases questions are often off-the-wall, they do provide interesting answers and a bit of levity. I didn't see a problem with the majority of Mythdon's links below, but those that are a problem are a ''serious'' problem and I hope this disturbing pattern doesn't show up anywhere else in Keepscases editing. Specifically, Keepscases seems to have difficulty with editor's personal religious beliefs and has gone so far as to attack other editors (examples and . Other comments that indicate an inability to put aside personal prejudices in this area are , , and this is just the past few months of RfAs. RfA is a difficult enough process; there is no need to subject editors to attacks based on personal religious beliefs. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #: Every single link you provided was based on userboxes, Shell. Part of me wishes that religious groups had offensive userboxes that I would of course oppose in a similar fashion...but I guess a bigger part of me is thankful that they don't. ] (]) 05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::So? Can you explain how that justifies calling someone "pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful"? If their userboxes offend you, its clearly possible to say so without name-calling. Since you don't see a problem with this hyper-focus on religious beliefs (which has no bearing on suitability for the mop), I don't see any course but removing you from participation where you're causing the disruption. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::It's so annoying when people claim they support the concept of freedom of speech, but pretend there's something wrong with judging people based on what they say. ] (]) 05:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::This is easily your strongest argument, and why someone might be willing to protect your privilege to oppose candidates based on userboxes. I don't feel that your opposes are limited to that (despite your claims here to the contrary) and I don't feel that your opposes represent a sensible way to go about criticism of candidates. Beyond this, you seem to refuse to accept that you might not be going about things the right way. ] (]) 06:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::"Right" and "wrong" are arbitrary, and userboxes are contributions that should be evaluated unless someone else put them there. Which opposes of mine do you believe I haven't been straightforward about? ] (]) 06:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::Keepscases, you might want to take a breath and realize that attacking folks who support your topic ban isn't doing your case any favors. I never mentioned free speech, so lets see if we can get back to the point. Do you have an answer to why you feel personal attacks are acceptable? Can you show us where you've gone through proper channels to object to these userboxes or start a community discussion about them? If you just keep on indicating you don't respect the concerns other editors have raised about your behavior, then you're painting us into a corner. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::My so-called "attacks", and by "attacks" I guess you mean single "oppose" votes on RfA's, were based quite clearly on attitudes that the users in question chose to express through their selected userboxes. And, as I have said countless times, I am no advocate of censorship, and think users have the right to create and display whatever userboxes they wish...but they should damned sure be judged on them. If I had a userbox stating (and I apologize, this is intentionally going to be offensive) "Any NIGGER Misplaced Pages user is gonna be MY SLAVE", would you EVER consider promoting me to adminship? Because, admittedly that was over-the-top, but you need to understand I find certain confrontational atheist userboxes *really, really offensive*. I don't want to censor the userboxes. I'm thankful I get to see which Wikipedians think they're a good idea. ] (]) 06:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::I'm going to take this to talk to avoid cluttering up this page further :) ] <sup>]</sup> 06:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::The talk referred to above is at ] and ]. — ] (]|]) 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' My concern is not so much that there is a violation of ], but that the editor persists in ''labouring the point''. An opposition to a candidate for displaying a particular userbox which may inflame the sensibilities of other editors is legitimate - but using that !vote to focus upon that aspect of the RfA is not; either the premise of the oppose will influence other respondees or it will not - it does not need bringing up repeatedly. It is evident that Keepcases is unable to understand this, since they are engaging in the same behaviours in this discussion here. Disagreeing and explaining your stance at every oppose vote is disruptive. The other point of ''interesting'' questions is as troubling, in that there seems to be an element of elitism in requiring some arcane standards of English or similar - and I say arcane because while this is the English language Misplaced Pages there are very different cultures using different grammatical constructions. Simply, RfA is a discussion regarding the trustworthiness and experience of the applicant in requesting extra tools and not a battleground for idealogical/religious viewpoints, nor a dissertion upon grammatical styles. Keepcases appears confused in this, and should therefore be required to avoid those pages until they can contribute in a more appropriate manner. ] (]) 10:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' - "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Misplaced Pages as an administrator" is an invalid reason for opposing adminship. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 13:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' Oh hell yeah. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 13:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Weak support'''. I was going to oppose per WereSpielChequers. I still endorse everything WSC said except the bit about former membership in the National Secular Society and being a "lapsed atheist" (not sure what that means, exactly). I consider some of Keepscases' RfA questions to be more problematic than the problematic userboxes. But what really made me switch to supporting the RfA ban was when I realised that apart from a few trivial fig leaf edits Keepscases seems to be a single purpose account for voting on RfA. That's bad enough in itself, but it's particularly bad when it's reasonable to assume that the voting behaviour is controlled by ideology/religion. – I also note (unrelated to RfA), which suggests to me that this user is already well on the slow route to a permaban. ] ] 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:While you may consider that assumption "reasonable", it's still incorrect. I believe users who choose intentionally offensive userboxes are unsuited for adminship, and I'll oppose every one of them, no matter what ideology is involved. That only atheism-related boxes have been involved is a reflection on the users responsible for them, not on me. ] (]) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::Don't talk such nonsense. It is only atheists you oppose because of userboxes. ] ], and ] surely portray the same supposed elitism that you think certain atheist userboxes do. However I've not seen you crusade against these userboxes. ] (]) 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::This is the first time I've ever even seen any of those userboxes, and they are statements of belief and not confrontational. It's okay to believe in loving Jesus, it's okay to believe in creationism, it's okay to believe in atheism. It's not okay to be disrespectful to others. ] (]) 15:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::"Real men love Jesus" is easily as confrontational as "keep your imaginary friends to yourself". Why will you not just admit that you have something against atheists? ] (]) 15:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::Because I don't have anything against atheists; why will you not just admit that you can't seem to argue against me without using strawmen? "Real men love Jesus" is not aimed at people who don't love Jesus, nor does it suggest there's anything wrong with them. Whereas using the term "imaginary friends" towards religious people is intentionally confrontational and disrespectful. ] (]) 15:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::The use of "real men" implies that people who do not love jesus are not real men. If "imgainry friends" is confrontational, then so is the "real men" one. ] (]) 16:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::Both are wanton, empty personal attacks. ] (]) 16:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::Well, unless anyone can provide examples in which I've failed to speak up against RfA candidates who displayed the userboxes Alan16 cites, none of this is relevant anyway. ] (]) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::(ec) Actually, there is a big difference. "Keep your imaginary friends to yourself" is a brilliant insult against believers, optimised for maximum impact. "Real men love Jesus" ''can'' be read as a negative statement about men who don't "love Jesus", but I think it makes much more sense to read it as a self-ironic statement that plays with (1) the stereotype of men with strong religious feelings being soft, and (2) the homoerotic overtones that stem from the fact that Jesus was a man, and which create a tension with the conservative attitudes that are particularly common among religious people. Also note that it fits the general pattern exploited in ]. For me this is a typical statement of a young Christian who is looking for his place between the conservative norms of his community and the much more open-minded culture among his friends. | |||
| #::::::::I was aware of all this, but it's no reason to change my opinion. I did not support the bans in the previous somewhat analogous situations, but there are just enough differences to make me support a topic ban in this case, especially the danger of polarisation along religious lines where religion simply shouldn't matter and the danger of an actual impact on RfA outcomes] ] 17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #Yes, please. RfA is already dramatic enough without Keepscases; we need people who throw water on the flames, not gasoline. --''']]''' (], ]) 14:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #"Everyone is entitled to their opinion" is like the First Amendment: on paper, you can do anything, but there are ] to prevent the abuse of power. Now, seeing as both Kmweber and DougsTech were eventually both kicked off Misplaced Pages even though people insisted "oh, they're just saying their opinion!", I think we should actually ''learn'' from our mistakes and topic ban him before he does something which would warrant a site-wide ban. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:I'm not comfortable with your analogy, given that I'm not making any false statements and not looking to abuse any power. All I expect is one vote, just like everyone else gets. ] (]) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::However, you're not voting or asking questions based on the candidate. If you would just do that, we wouldn't even be here, and you would have nothing to worry about. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' He appears to have a bias against atheists or maybe it is only just one userbox, but that doesn't matter because either way it shows that he doesn't actually read the RfA before voting oppose, and I don't think this is the sort of person we want voting in RfAs. ] (]) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' (mind, I don't "self identify" as ]). ] (]) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''', though I don't exactly have much to add, given the completeness of the reasons above. ] (]) 15:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Oppose==== | |||
| #'''Oppose''' as I am not doing anything wrong. I have nothing against atheism, no matter how many users try to paint me as such, and I have the right to vote in RfA's and the right to defend myself against attackers. I propose discussions on how to discourage others from badgering me about my votes. ] (]) 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:You said above that the accusations against you are "easily disproven". It would be helpful to your case to see some evidence of this.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:<s>'''Strongly Oppose'''</s> Full disclosure, I haven't edited in about 9 months, but I still do a lot of reading on various policy and process pages, and I'm finding it impossible not to step in here, so here I am. First of all, let's put to bed the notion that this user is voting based on candidates' religious beliefs. This all stems from a higly inflammitory and inappropriate userbox displayed by the athiesm wikiproject. Frankly, I'd be shocked if anyone here thought this box, which blatenly insults anyone who believes in any form of higher being, was appropriate for display anywhere. The idea that an oppose based on a user endorsing such divisive and insulting content is worthy of a ban is silly, even if you don't agree with Keepscases views or methods of voicing them. If a Cristian RFA hopeful displayed a userbox that stated "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is doomed to burn in hell for the rest of eternity", I'd expect an oppose or two. <span style="border:#0000FF 2px solid;background:#CCFFFF">] ]</span> 01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) To '''Neutral''' per discussion below. <span style="border:#0000FF 2px solid;background:#CCFFFF">] ]</span> 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::What someone puts on their userpage doesn't need to have anything to do with their article contributions etc.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::More to the point, Keepscases has opposed people simply for being members of WikiProject Atheism, even if they never displayed one of the userboxes that are supposedly the sole problem. ] (]) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::More to the point, that is what I was just saying. What someone's personal views are should not be as significant at an RfA as their relevant contributions to the project.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::::I say if you have have a problem with the userbox itself, nominate it for deletion via the Mfd process but the userbox itself shouldn't be used support or oppose anyone. Creating drama around it, even more so. '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] '''</sub> 03:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #Opposed to shotgun witch trials on general principles. --] (]) 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:<s>In favor of ].</s> - Changing to support. Block discussion closed. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #I'm in the clear minority here, but so be it. While I disagree with Keepscases' opinion, I think he is entitled to it. Personally I don't think it is right for the community to say certain kinds of opposes aren't allowed at RfA. The only reason Keepscases' !votes cause a lot of drama is because editors feel the need to reply and say how dumb they think the !vote is. If people just ignored the !vote, much like the closing crat is likely to do, then there would be no drama. --] (]) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # I support the right of anypne to come up with any grounds they feel like to oppose an RfA and the right of the community to summarily ignore them. ]] 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:I thank you, but why should I be ignored? Why shouldn't my vote count as much as anyone else's? If I'm out of line, won't the votes reflect that? I don't like where your slippery slope leads to. ] (]) 05:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::That wasn't directed at you specifically, but at the ether. As to why your vote shouldn't count, that is up to the community poor some some representative portion of it, to decide. ]] 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:::I for one believe everyone's vote should count. If a user's position is unsupported, the votes should reflect that. ] (]) 05:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' for the most part Keepscases has been spot on about the userboxes and while I have found some of his other conduct trivial at times it has been repeatedly sanctioned at WT:RFA as acceptable. ] (]) 07:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''oppose''' Anyone with an account can NotVote for any reason, or no reason at all. Merely having a numbered comment SHOULD NOT MEAN ANYTHING in itself. I'm baffled that RfA editors refuse to spit the hook - didn't they learn after the "SELF NOM IS PRIMA FACIEA EVIDENCE etc etc" stuff? About the ubx: I'd agree that people displaying that ubx are probably not suitable for admins, but Keepcases has begun notvoting on people who are members of a project that has the UBXs, even if those editors have not had the ubx. <small>this atheist thinks some people need to think hard about the userboxes they display</small> ] (]) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # These ridiculous voting sections should be removed; sanction discussions are not RFAs, nor should they take this RFA format. Why is this considered an exception? I'm sorry; Keepscases is not an exception - the sanction proposal discussion should be treated like any other user. ] (]) 10:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' I do not share Keepcases' concern over the userboxes and I have stated as much in an RfA from several months ago. That being said, the only genuine drama that is generated does not come from Keepcases himself, but from a tiny number of individuals who have repeatedly sought to take his occasional and (admittedly) non-influential userbox-related comment and turn it into a Wagnerian opera. I have yet to see any evidence of how Keepcases has derailed an RfA based on his unique observations. Ultimately, this debate is going to have to question something that is becoming painfully obvious: is Keepcases being prosecuted because he has hopelessly disrupted the RfA process, or is he in the hot seat because a few people hate him and this is the only way they have to get back at him? ] (]) 12:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Weak Oppose'''. Amongst encyclopaedians views on religion should be as irrelevant as ethnic background or preference in team sports; providing they edit with a neutral point of view. I think Keepscases would be a much more effective participant at RFA if he were to shift his attention from POV userboxes to POV edits and broaden his opposes so that he didn't appear to be targeting atheists. As a lapsed atheist myself and a former member of the ], I'm aware that one of the differences between the US and the UK in particular is that a lot of our US editors come from societies where prejudice against atheists is one of the few socially acceptable prejudices, whilst many of our UK editors come from a post Christian society where atheism is pretty normal, at least amongst educated people. To make this project work we all need to find ways to work with people we wouldn't normally expect agree with. I would prefer that this sort of debate was held at MFD's over particular UBX's rather than here, and would suggest that Keepscases not be topic banned but instead consider this as an admonishment for an RFA !voting record where a disconcertingly high proportion of his opposes have been of atheists. BTW I wasn't impressed by either. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' mostly per Pastor Theo. We've seen similar disputes regarding userboxes; people who support Israel, Palestine, and Christianity, and many others and at those time people made controversies on any possibility of candidate's bias on race, belief, religion, politics, etc. If you want to ban Keepcases, bring all people who had the similar disputes in the past on the table. --] 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:Okay. Show me any editor who is repeatedly arguing in RfAs that, say, a Jewish or Muslim editor cannot participate fully and equally in Misplaced Pages on the basis of their declared religious affiliation and I'll vote to ban them from RfAs, too. With pleasure. ] (]) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::I don't think I need to. I've state my stance so have you.--] 19:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' What ThaddeusB says above is the essence of the problem: We cannot go around telling people for what reasons they are allowed to !vote and for what not. I have argued against DougTech's topic ban the same way. The problem does not come from Keepscases' irrelevant !votes (and they are irrelevant because he has so far failed every single time to show any single piece of evidence that a candidate he opposed for such reasons has really edited in a non-neutral way). The problem is the reaction they cause and we would do good in reminding people to simple stop commenting on these !votes and let it rest. No candidate will fail RFA because of these !votes because I think no closing crat will consider any !vote (support or oppose!) valid that does not have any relevance to the contributions of the candidate in question. But as Thaddeus says, we should not start forbidding people to !vote for whatever reasons they deem relevant. We should instead inform those !voters that their reasons will be ignored if not relevant to the candidate and we should encourage people to simply let those !votes stand. ] is a good essay on this "problem" (although the problem is caused by wasting hours discussing such topic bans instead of simply ignoring those !votes and doing something that is more important). Regards ''']]''' 13:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:I disagree 100% that my votes are "irrelevant"; first, the addition of a userbox itself is a non-neutral edit, and secondly, I have always been clear that my concern is regarding users with disrespectful/confrontational attitudes being the face of Misplaced Pages, and not so much with their edits themselves. ] (]) 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::I know that you do. Unfortunately for you, an overwhelming consensus in the community agrees with me on this. Edits on userpages are ''per definition'' non-neutral and as such, your argument would be against having userpages at all. As for the "face of Misplaced Pages", in my experience, no new user or outsider will go to a userpage before observing edits by said user and as such, their edits are what people will see first when encountering them. Personally, I have not observed a single occurrence where a new user agreed with someone's edits but has then afterwards felt threatened by something they read on said user's page. Usually they will judge someone by their edits and so do we at RFA. Hence your !vote, while your right to cast, has so far not been considered relevant to someone's ability to become an admin. Regards ''']]''' 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #Caspian is right; this argument feels like a nationalistic dispute to me. And for some readers, that's just what it is; there's been a steady decline in the relative influence of organized religions in western civilizations for the last 500 years, but that decline is spotty, and nonexistent in much of Asia and Africa. Equating religion with having imaginary friends is certain to be perceived by intelligent people in many countries as painting their entire country as childish or delusional ... not cool. Keeps is picking up on this, and I'm happy to see he's willing to take a stand; the problem is that he doesn't seem to be as interested in any other battle, and the overall effects of this fight at RFA are, for now, negative. As a first step, I'd like to see more discussion about the problem Keeps is pointing to. On the other hand, I reject Keeps' position that a topic ban is out of the question ... it's too soon IMO, and when it comes, a first offense should be temporary rather than permanent, but it's on the table. - Dank (]) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' - as per SoWhy and Caspian. Danks point regarding the wording of the userbox wording as it may be precieved as offensive to some people is, to me, the real problem. That being said, I don't agree with the methods or standards used by Keepscases at the RfA's and hope that he would reconsider his views. ] (]) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Strong oppose''' - So let's see, this is the 3rd person we don't particularly agree with the views for? I wanna say this: We're turning RFA into a personal blocking because of how '''they''' feel, not because of how '''others''' feel. This is the fourth person who's caused crap at RFA, and it takes less than a month to go after him? We're talking walled garden here, very tall walled garden. I think the sensible solution is to work this out at ], not causing an issue at ]. Oppose topic ban and indefinite block completely. I feel this is just getting out of hand.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(] ])</sup> 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:I respectfully disagree that RFA is a walled garden. Everyone who wants adminship, and everyone who supports or opposes them, gets involved at RFA to some extent, some to a great extent. That's one reason we have more conflict than some other areas; participation is very heterogeneous, including lots of people who don't agree with each other and sometimes don't like each other. - Dank (]) 14:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::That's not completely what I mean. Look at this - this is the 4th time in 12-15 months we're crucifying someone for making strange votes on RFA. And what a shock, the first three are blocked :|. We don't need to tell another one through this - <FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(] ])</sup> 14:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' Mainly per Icewedge because in my opinion, having a userbox that simply says "This user is an atheist" is fine and non-controversial and unoffensive, but saying "keep imaginary friends to yourself" is offensive and is a legitimate oppose rationale.--] (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 14:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:Fine. But he voted to oppose ] for simply displaying the fine and non-controversial and unoffensive "This user is a member of..." userbox, stating unequivocally that Tedder never displayed an even potentially disruptive userbox, by your own criteria. This was an attempt to blacklist by affiliation, contrary to ]. ] (]) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' per SoWhy. By now, Keepscases should be keenly aware that xe is in the minority. It shouldn't be the community's responsibility to keep anybody from tilting at windmills if they are so inclined. The !votes will be ignored, people will grumble under their breath, and eventually Keepcases will move on to other endeavors. A topic ban at this point will do nothing but provide a solid platform from which Keepcases (or anybody) can yell loudly about the evils of Misplaced Pages. ] (<small>]• ]<sup>]</sup></small>) 14:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' Objections to how an editor votes can be disruptive. The votes themselves, which can be discounted by a bureaucrat and have never been shown to change the outcome of the discussion, rarely so. If an editor wants to object because of someone's user box, I think that's their privledge. Their vote doesn't have to be counted if it's not legitimate. ] (]) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' There must be a very, very high bar for banning an editor from spaces like RFA where significant discussions and decisions are made regarding the governance of this community. Even if the accusations made by his or her detractors are accurate - a concession I am not yet willing to make - this editor's actions do not rise to that level. --] (]) 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' I'm no fan of Keepscases (although I will admit that his/her questions can help inject some well-needed lightheartedness into the discussion) nor his/her views. However, I do agree with some of the above comments that a fair portion of the disruption comes simply from feeding the troll. If Keepscases opposes or supports for a reason you feel is inane, just ignore it - it will go away. The solution to all of this is that the result comes through consensus, and not a vote. An oppose based on a removed userbox is not likely to be given the same weight as a support or oppose based on an analysis of recent contributions. We should trust our bureaucrats and the working system we already have in place, not try to restrict opinions. An oppose based on religious beliefs, however flawed, is no more "flimsy" than "Why not?" Essentially, what ThaddeusB and SoWhy said. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose'''. While he may have a bee in his bonnet about the issue, he has clearly explained why and though I may disagree with his arguments, I think it is not an obviously unreasonable stance. ] (]) 21:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' Just because he has a minority viewpoint doesn't mean he should be prohibited from expressing it.--] (]) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #While I disagree with his opinion, I will say that this is too soon. I fear that we've rushed into this much too rashly. What have we done so far? A few RfA threads, and then a topic ban proposal. There has not been any sort of dispute resolution, nor any sort of formalized discussion. Most of the WT:RFA threads have been just a lot of lynch mobs, which are trying to get Keepscases to stop via force. Those threads will not get him to change his opinion or his !vote. Conversely, they'll just make him more irritated, and that will lead to hard feelings all around. I think that there's still hope in Keepscases, as long as we go about it rationally and in an organized fashion. My opinion is that there should be an RFC over his behavior, which will 1) lay out the problem in a neat and organized fashion, 2) not have the pressure of any pending RfA hovering over it, 3) allow everyone to get their opinions out equally, and 4) be a lot friendlier way to go. It's amazing just how much a clean presence of mind will solve. <small>(] · ]) · ] · </small> 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:Good suggestion with the RfC. I'll file an RfC after this discussion ends. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::If you have the best interests of the project at heart, Mythdon, you'll let someone else handle an RfC; you've been more than a little obsessive about this whole thing, and while you have every right to participate and share your opinion, I hardly think you're the person to orchestrate any kind of rational and calm discussion that X! suggests. ] (]) 03:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' per Viridae. This is a reenactment of every other "He can't soil '''my''' RFA!" bullshit that solves nothing, stokes nothing but drama and reveals nothing unseen except how little faith people have in the basic observational skills of our bureaucrats and how violently butthurt some people get over their RFAs. Please note this does absolutely does not count as an endorsement of Keepscases useless conduct. I should also note that as a completely uninvolved observer, ] unhelpfully antagonistic "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" sneering in this thread is tremendously dismaying to me. His baiting is doing his side of the discussion no service and has almost single-handedly changed my perspective on the whole matter. With that in mind, I refuse to support breaking this particular vexatious butterfly on a wheel.] ] 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #:Where did you get the idea of "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" in my comments? I did not say I would laugh, nor did I call Keepscases a "punk". I do not know where you got that idea. I actually said things, including but not limited to "you won't be there, because if I see you there, and if you are topic banned, you'll be reported, period" and "let me tell you that if I were an administrator, and if I saw you engaging in this behavior, I would block you, no questions asked.". I don't know how you picked up "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" in my comments. I was not making any attempt to bait anyone. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 03:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #::Since you chose to single out my comment for further inquiry, I'll oblige you and be blunt; I initially weakly supported an RFA ban after reading the discussion, and then slowly segued to a strong oppose after seeing the eagerness and self-righteous vitriol in your comments, which suggest to me (an uninvolved and previously sympathetic observer) an unsettling degree of unprofessional "enthusiasm" in your interests here. This is the end of my comments on this topic. ] ] 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' If comments at RfA are irrelevant, ignore them. ''']''' (]) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' there should be a more formal attempt at dispute resolution before a topic ban. The RFA questions and opposes by Keepscases may be controversial but I think they should be permitted (at least those mentioned here; comments such as those that led to the user being blocked in 2007 were inappropriate). However, there does appear to be a lack of civility in the replies to other users at ], so maybe there could be a restriction on the user's discussion at RFA without preventing participation completely. ] (]) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| Note to Bleeding Blue, regarding your oppose above - I couldn't care less if Keepscases likes, dislikes, hates, agrees with, !votes per, or otherwise has proclaimed jihad against atheist admins. My proposal for the topic ban had absolutely nothing to do with this. It is for the years of ongoing drama in RfA. ] | ] 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :A block of sorts would probably be better right now than a topic ban.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Excuse my ignorance, but all the drama I'm aware of is the stuff related to that box, and a few irreverent questions. (Admittedly, if something more serious happened some time ago, I'm probably unaware and am willing to reconsider based on that.) I've also seen valid !votes and discussion on other RFAs, so I think a full ban is harsh, even if I don't particularly endorse some of his/her actions. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::With all due respect, if you don't have a full awareness of the situation, you might want to rethink jumping in with a strong oppose, especially with a strawman argument that it is about atheism. It is not. You might want to take a stroll through Keepscases contributions, and note the trends. Most of the drama you will find has nothing to do with atheism. ] | ] 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm going to stay down here for now, I'm finding it confusing to respond in two different sections. I'm aware of the Tedder !vote, that seemed to start this whole ball rolling. I didn't and don't think it's valid to oppose based on the actions/views of a WikiProject you associate yourself with. If you all think that !vote alone is worthy of a full topic ban, that's fine, but in my mostly useless opinion, that's a little on the harsh side. I do, however, think that opposing someone who actively displays the box is as valid as an oppose on edit count or namespace distribution. While it indeed says nothing about the editor's ability to contribute, that's very little of what adminship is about. It's more about conflict resolution and cooperation, which that box is severly harmful to. As for the claims of continuing drama, if there are other issues, again, please point them out, and I'll consider them. I can only respond to the issues you raise directly in support of this ban. <span style="border:#0000FF 2px solid;background:#CCFFFF">] ]</span> 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you look at ], you'll see a lot of drama kicked up about Keepscases' actions on RfA. Note that not all of their edits have brought negative attention; among many generic "thanks for voting" responses there are a few mentions of appreciation (and I have to admit that I agree that was hilarious) but far more people who were upset by Keepscases' strange opposition votes and questions for RfA candidates. They included an oppose for a person who had a picture with a cigarette on their userpage, a question about notification if the candidate died after being an administrator, whether or not they edit under the influence of hallucinogens, etc. This userbox crusade is the latest in a very long history of strange behavior at RfAs. -- ''']]''' 02:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for your response. Yes, I've had a look at that. It seems to me that this user has a habit of posing unusual questions at RFAs, that seems to account for most of the queries. S/he's certainly been warned about it plenty and if it's becoming overly disruptive to the process, something certainly needs to be done. My oppose was mostly based on my perception that this stemmed from the userbox issue, as most (if not all) of the recent discussion has arisen from and been about that, and I think that usage of divisive messages on your user page is a valid concern in an RFA. The pattern of behavior re:RFAs has been consistent and odd, but it seems like we're trying to elevate it to the level of "Power Hunger" and "Too many admins", if you catch my drift. The questions s/he asks are optional and it seems , according to one particular post on her talk, that there is consensus to remove "stupid" questions. That seems like a fairer solution to the problem to me. <span style="border:#0000FF 2px solid;background:#CCFFFF">] ]</span> 02:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If we say that stupid questions are to be removed, do we need a full-out discussion each RfA of which ones to remove? Who decides this? Why should resources be taken up to determine this? This has already been proposed many times and shot down each time because doing it on an ''ad hoc'' basis would be too difficult to determine. It is akin to addressing the symptom of a disease. Here, we address the root of the problem - he simply cannot participate anymore. Questions are not the only disruption; it is also in his supports, opposes, and subsequent megabyte-long discussions that ensue. If you don't want to take the time to investigate the issue, I respect that. However, you should rethink your "strong oppose" vote with a strawman argument (sorry to repeat that, there's no other way to put it) and instead either don't vote, or state something to the effect that you are opposing without taking the time to investigate the situation. ] | ] 03:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :(Outdent)I believe that both of your accusations against me and/or my vote are unfair. My 'strawman' argument was in response to how every prior discussion about the athiesm thing has gone prior to this thread, and was made prior to the focus changing to his/her unusual questions at RFAs. Each prior discussion at indifidual RFAs has boiled down to slinging the 'anti-athiest' tag around, and Keepscases' futile attempts at making it understood by everyone that he has a problem with that box, and not the beliefs it represents. It's unfortunate that he opposed one user for simply belonging to the wikiproject. In my opinion, it would have been valid to ask the user what his opinion of the box was, as a member of the project, and whether he thinks it's appropriate to display there. But, judging by the standards that have been set in this discussion, that would have been dismissed as another disruptive silly question and no doubt included in that exhaustive list of diffs provided earlier. | |||
| :As for the idea that I didn't look into this issue, the only reason I'm here is because I silently witnessed all of the prior discussions unfold at WP:RFA and felt s/he was being unfairly attacked for bringing up a valid concern. I was of the (apparently misguided) impression that you all were more concerned by that than some silly hypothetical questions at RFAs, and so didn't directly address them. If my vote is improper, it will be properly discouted when the time comes. <span style="border:#0000FF 2px solid;background:#CCFFFF">] ]</span> 03:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It isn't as if a 'crat is going to close this with some defined outcome. This is a community-sactioned ban proposal. I made no purposeful accusation of you. You state above, "Admittedly, if something more serious happened some time ago, I'm probably unaware and am willing to reconsider based on that." I have no other interpretation of this other than "I haven't investigated the situation in full". If you meant something different, I apologize. I made a proposal based on over a year of past disruption. I am familiar with that disruption, and intended the participants to also familiarize themselves with the evidence at hand in the user's contributions, as I stated in the #1 support of the ban. Your strong opposal was based on this statement: "The idea that an oppose based on a user endorsing such divisive and insulting content is worthy of a ban is silly". The ban was not at all proposed because of this. Thus, by definition, your argument became a strawman argument. I don't mean this as an insult, it's just the way it is. All in all, I don't mean to belittle you or strongarm you into changing your mind. What I ''do'' want you to do is ensure that your participation here is based on sound reasoning - for your own integrity. If you prefer to leave things as-is, I will comment no further on this. ] | ] 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've changed my vote above, but I'd like to make a few things clear, mostly to indeed preserve my integrity. | |||
| :::I was under the impresson that Keepscases alleged "Incivilty and Soapboxing" (ie the title of this discussion) was the primary issue here. As I stated earlier, I was aware of these RFA questions because a simple glance at the user's talk page makes it impossible to miss the issue. But, at least to me and judging by the nature of most of the comments I found there, it was a minor concern compared to the userbox voting. Hence my "more serious" qualifier in my original statement. | |||
| :::As far as integrity goes, I'm here partially because it bothers me that a hopeful admin posting divisive, attacking, hurtful, etc messages on their user page is so readily dismissed by the community as unimportant. The very nature of adminship is dealing with other users, often in heated situations. If we're all failing to see a problem with posting hateful language on a page that's supposed to represent a user charged with conflict resolution, I'm not sure what else I can say. I'd actually like to preserve my own integrity by standing by my position that these kinds of things are perfectly appropriate to discuss at an RFA. I refuse to believe that this isn't the relevant issue, because it's blatently obvious that this was the issue that caused this action, that inspired it's title, and that had been discussed several times in the past couple of weeks. If this was purely a "silly questions" problem, the timing is curious at least. | |||
| :::As far as the MfD dismissal I keep hearing repeated...okay, so the template gets deleted. That doesn't change the fact that users that used to have that box on their page were ready and willing to post such a message. It doesn't stop them from reposting it in a different form. I don't suppose we're going to XfD every user page that posts such messages? If I post a racist, sexist, anti-religious or otherwise bigoted message on my user page, I fully expect it to be brought up if I should run for adminship someday. | |||
| :::Finally, I'm mostly retracting my original !vote because I respect some of the editors that have arrived here, and if they are of the opinion that Keepscases behavior is truly detrimental to the RFA process, I'll respect it as a less experienced editor and trust their judgment in that area. I hope you'll in turn respect the opinions I've laid out here. <span style="border:#0000FF 2px solid;background:#CCFFFF">] ]</span> 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It saddens me that you changed your vote. Unlike most here, you did and still do seem to grasp what this is about. ] (]) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| To Thad and Viridae, I understand your point, and see it as analogous to a community's response to trolling. Permit me the parallel here, even though I '''do not''' feel Keeps is trolling. When a board is trolled, the actual disruption comes not from the troll but from the response of unwary individuals. Someone (to pick an old example) asking faux-naive questions on a usenet board only succeeds in trolling if respondents are ensnared. A simple community policy in the face of that kind of trolling is ]. And while there are tremendous returns to such a policy (for one, it is ahierarchical), it clearly doesn't work in all cases. RfA represents a venue ill suited to DFTT. Kurts question and oppose ''invariably'' brought responses from regulars, candidates and new users just discovering RfA. No amount of time passing or admonishment offered from regulars diminished the yield on Kurt's questions. Even worse, discussion would be locked down (or shuffled off to the poorly attended RfA subpage talk space), leaving only the oppose. From the standpoint of an outside observer, it would appear that community norms allowed the irritant but not the response (obviously this is a lopsided and rushed comment on the business of RfA baiting/trolling). Misplaced Pages has developed the practical necessity for some community control. DFTT is insufficent. If we don't establish some norms and enforce them, we will fight and refight this battle until everyone is sick from hearing it. How long before we can make a determination that Keeps's participation in RfA is distracting enough that we respond (rather than shuffling it off to the closing crat and adding the insulting and inaccurate "of course this vote won't be counted" response) as a community? A year? 2 years? Rather than recapitulate this debate each and every time we have a new RfA, just have the debate now and be done with it. ] (]) 05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's amazing that the consensus here seems to be that "ban Keepscases from RfA" is a more appropriate solution than "figure out why many users seem to think intentionally offensive and confrontational userboxes are okay." ] (]) 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not amazing at all. The userboxes aren't an issue. The original impetus for your opposes isn't what drives this discussion. This isn't about whether or not userbox XYZ is ok or not ok. ] (]) 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::If people let me oppose and left me the hell alone, none of this would have ever happened. If you agree, then why am I the problem? If you disagree, tell me what I am doing wrong. Stop being vague. ] (]) 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, my first response to that is that you are obviously postulating a counterfactual. The problem with DFTT (again, excuse the parallel, I don't think you are trolling) is that people ''do'' rise to the bait. But, let me also be very clear. Just because one link in a chain breaking may stop the end result, doesn't mean that all links are equally important. I have a hard time casting a wide net and saying "everyone who responds to Keeps is wrong" when the only constant in all the responses to you is you. Also, don't confuse my statement that 'the userboxes aren't an issue' with some sort of agreement about your opposes. I'm just attempting to cut short a discussion about the relative merits of userboxes because it isn't germane. Just as a relative discussion of userbox merits is only glancingly related to a particular RfA. ] (]) 05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not really looking to paint anyone as "right" or "wrong". I have my opinions, others may have theirs, but I for one believe I know which side has brought the dishonesty and obfuscation to this debate. As much as I have been attacked for being prejudiced against atheists, one would think at some point a link demonstrating that would be provided. ] (]) 06:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Tan's block/ban happy approach creates a chilling effect. ] (]) 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::NotAnIP - comments like that provide absolutely nothing productive to the community effort. Tan has always done his best to improve the quality of our project, and regardless of the results - suggesting that there is an ulterior motive is simply ludicrous. I suggest that you rethink your approach. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Invalid, prejudiced reasons for opposing, that have nothing to do with adminship, ''should be chilled''. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't have any prejudice. If someone wants to display a userbox that announces he's a jerk, I'm not prejudiced when I believe him. ] (]) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your own words say otherwise. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Surely you can provide an example, then. ] (]) 15:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, I stated it earlier, and here it is again. Your statement, "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Misplaced Pages as an administrator" is an invalid reason for opposing adminship. It expresses prejudice (prejudgment) that has nothing to do with adminship. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 15:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That comment is based on the attitudes that that group publicly displays. You need to get over this way of thinking that it's "prejudiced" to judge a person or a group based on positions that they publicly and intentionally represent. Are users who flaunt KKK membership suitable for adminship? ] (]) 15:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::As do many Christian groups. So what? As to the KKK - why not? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 16:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Someone who says he loves the KKK or is otherwise some kind of political extremist will ''probably'' not last long enough to even be considered for adminship. {{Userlinks|Axmann8}} comes to mind. They will most likely engage in extremely tendentious editing, and even if they don't get indef'd for it, that will sink their chances for adminship, because ''then'' you've got a valid reason to oppose. Likewise with membership in any other organization, never mind some wikiproject. If you had evidence that Tedder was editing tendentiously, you might have something. Pre-judging as being unfit, just because of membership in a project, but without supporting evidence of actual bad behavior, renders you unqualified to cast a vote in the matter. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| UNINDENT - Baseball Bugs - You should read through some RfAs sometime. Many people support / oppose for arbitrary nonsense. The only difference with keepscases is that everyone knows they're nonsense reasons and piles. A few admins directing irrelevant discussion to the talkpages would be useful, as would telling people to ignore pointless notvotes. ] (]) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you're saying there are others who have no business voting in RfA's, I certainly agree. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Chad Davis - Tan often suggests blocking people who he finds difficult to work with. What policy is being broken here? We see here Baseball bugs suggesting that these opposes are "not valid" and should be blockable. There is no policy stating what reasons are not valid for RfA. Indeed, the policy specifically says that bizarre opposes happen and are ignored by the crats and can be ignored by everyone else. Frankly, opposing someone because they are a member of the atheism wikiproject (which has a "hateful" userbox; even though the candidate has never used that userbox) is no less stupid than many contribs to the thoroughly fucked RfA process. BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY THAT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES BAD FAITH. ] (]) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record, I concede that that particular vote may have been a mistake on my part. Tedder seemed to be genuinely unaware of that userbox, disapproving of its contents, not closely connected with the project anyway, and understanding of my vote. I have wished him well. ] (]) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Indeed, the candidates calm response to you may have swayed more people to support the persuaded people to oppose. Admins will often come into contact with people who have strong viewpoints. Being able to understand those views (which many people in this thread haven't demonstrated) and being able to work out a "solution" is a good thing. I do hope you see that asking candidates of their opinions about the UBX is probably better than opposing right away ] (]) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I have not read every comment involved in this thread and have not followed the dispute in every intimate detail, but it seems to me that those objecting to certain votes are causing more of a disruption than the votes themselves. There are already bureaucrats whose job is to sort through the discussion and to weed out votes that aren't reasonable. I am very wary of restricting good faith contributions to RfA discussions. I suspect that once a pattern emerges in a particular voters comments, they will be viewed accordingly and appropriately to that context. I'm really not sure why it's such a big deal why a particular editor votes the way they do, and as others have pointed out, lots of RfA votes are based on dubious arguments or either straight support or opposes. So if someone wants to vote based on a reason that others see as frivolous, let the policies and those elected to assess votes deal with it. Sorry if I'm not grasping the big picture or some critical detail. I would just like to see votes and discussion at RfA go forward without those objecting to a particular vote or pattern of votes being able to cause a disruption and then say, "see all the disruption this editor is causing when we keep objecting to what they're doing?" in order to restrain and limit those they disagree with. If there is a true consensus among editors that a certain type of vote is inappropriate, then I'm okay with that too, but deciding which ] to count can get pretty tricky and we already have people elected by the community serving in that role. ] (]) 19:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Would someone please care to identify exactly what policy Keepcases has violated? ] 04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Are quirky questions and comments a bad thing, at RfA? I'm not sure that they are. Depending on how you look at it, they might provide a bit of levity, or they might give us a glimpse at how candidates respond to tense feelings, unusual characters, or even outright trolling -- all of which can be very useful, seeing as administrators are likely to run into all of the above. Some of these comments I would not consider disruptive at all -- or, at least, not disruptive to an actionable level -- for example expressing concern over candidates who are legal minors (not a position I agree with, but certainly one people should be free to express), or concern over userpage material that the commenting user considers to be hateful (specifically the "imaginary friends" bit), or pointing out that users have adjusted otherwise regular behavior just prior to RfA. isn't the sort of comment I look kindly on, but I'm not sure if it rises to the sort of thing I'd ban someone over. , on the other hand, is quite a problem -- we shouldn't be opposing candidates based on their religious beliefs. – <small>] (])</small> 11:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * It's beyond obvious now that this proposal is not going to receive a community consensus, particularly in this format of discussion - can someone please close this accordingly? ] (]) 12:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ===Proposed indefinite block and evidence=== | |||
| I have proposed an indefinite block ]. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{anchor|Proposed indefinite block and evidence}} | |||
| {{hat|1=This is distracting to the above, and premature. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 03:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| ;Proposed indefinite block and evidence | |||
| I am proposing an indefinite block on Keepscases. It seems to me that a topic ban from RfA will not legitimately solve this. I know I supported a topic ban of DougsTech from RfA, but I think now that this kind of disruption is warranted for an indefinite block, as I don't think topic bans are harsh enough for these kind of users. I think that a topic ban will not make the user learn lessons as much as an indefinite block from Misplaced Pages. An indefinite block will more likely achieve a lesson learned, than a mere topic ban. | |||
| Here is a list of diffs that convince me that this user shall not be editing Misplaced Pages, much less RfA: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| And I don't even need to provide my reasons for each diff, except in short that this user makes up nonsense reasons for supporting and opposing candidates and asking nonsense questions that don't help the RfA in any way. | |||
| This user needs to be blocked. If I was an administrator, I would block the user myself. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Keepscases would probably '''Oppose''' your RfA because your deleted userpage shows that you're trying to hide something. -- ''']]''' 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Support | |||
| #'''Strong Support'''. — ] (]|]) 02:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Oppose | |||
| #'''Oppose''' I think the topic ban is better. I see one of three results as likely from such a ban. The first possibility is that Keepscases moves elsewhere on Misplaced Pages and is productive. The second is that being unable to disrupt RfA any longer, Keepscases leaves Misplaced Pages. The last is that Keepscases acts disruptive somewhere else, in which case they are blocked from the entire site. So we either have a positive result, a neutral result, and a result that ends up eventually doing what you're proposing anyway. -- ''']]''' 02:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' The topic ban is debatable. I don't think anything this user has done warrants action of this magnitude. <span style="border:#0000FF 2px solid;background:#CCFFFF">] ]</span> 02:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Ridiculous''', and counter-productive to do this while another proposal was fresh. I have no issue with Keepscases's participation in any arena outside of RfA. ] | ] 02:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #Oppose per Tan39. –''']''' | ] 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' Topic ban should suffice and its outcome should be made before attempting another proposal. '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] '''</sub> 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Discussion | |||
| If keepscases remains unproductive after his topic ban an indef block could be applied ] ]</font> 02:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Some other editor should "officially" SNOW close this. No one is gonna indef block Keepscases right now, and we should all concentrate on the above topic ban proposal. ] | ] 03:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Botnet attack? == | |||
| See the log for edit filter 3, multiple IPs attempting to add the same nonsense information and edit summary to ]. I checked a couple of them and they don't appear at first glance to be proxies, but they sure look like a botnet of zombie computers. Should these IP addresses be blocked? Thanks, ] (]) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I think the title of the article is a magnet for those who want to generate links to their own sites for ]. I've semi protected the article for a month. Should the spamming resume at that point, I think we should permanently semi-protect. You have to picture somebody following bad SEO advice to look for guestbooks where they can post to. This Misplaced Pages page is going to be the first thing that shows up when they search for guestbooks. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I checked some of these at the time, and they all looked to be non-open-proxies. The IPs also look quite dynamic. While a block would not be inappropriate, the question really is how long the block should be for. Since the edit filter is already stopping them, and is likely to continue to do so, I'd be inclined to just ignore them. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring at ] continued == | |||
| {{resolved|For now, at least. Full protection imposed on page. ] ]</sub> 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| Anyone remember ]? That was a little more then a week ago. Yesterday I actually added my first new contribution to the article, the first sentence: "The '''Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians''' involved ] and ] considerations in the 19th and 20th Century." I have more than one reference for the term "Eurocentric"; this is provided at ] (typo sic). However, Wdford, whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" , but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before Wdford removed all flagged statements from the article. . I think that "Eurocentric considerations" need to be mentioned in the lead. Just look at the statement of the historian to whom I referred: | |||
| :"''Far from trying to conceal these cultural sources , they took pride in what the received from Egypt. For centuries thereafter Western historians too made no attempt to conceal this debt ; only in the nineteenth century did Grecophiles or Philhellenes, under the sway of Western racism, reject the idea that the sublime culture they so admired was not original or, worse, was not of Indo-European (Aryan) origin. The mere thought that Greece had been influenced by second-rate Egyptians or, perish the thought, by African, made them break out in a mental rash. They resorted to every trick in the book in the book to hide the truth and disseminate a perverted history with unmistakeably racist overtones. For the African-American authors, reconstruction of the ancient world thus means liberation from the shackles of the racially distorted picture of the past and redemption of the historical truth. It means discarding the Eurocentric point of view in favor of a fresh description of the ancient world's history and its cultures - a description in which Europe has neither primacy, exclusivity nor supremacy."'' (Yaacov Shavit, History in Black, pp. 43-44) | |||
| Shavit certainly is not an Afrocentrist. "History in Black" is one of the best books on the topic. But in any case, there would be a lot more sources that say essentially the same. But regardless of my argument, the edit warring with Wdford continued, and currently I am at 3 reverts, if I count correctly. With his last edits, Wdford then re-added a lot of content from the previous revisions . To me this looks like a cheap evasion tactic. Wdford doesn't want to discuss the issue of the relevance of Eurocentrism for the article, so he adds some different content. But I am not falling for that. We need to discuss the issue, and I don't suppose that Wdford can bring forward a source-based argument that the "Eurocentric considerations" should not be mentioned in some form in the lead paragraph. I would revert him again, but that would be breaking 3rr. | |||
| In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions. If this wasn't actually a notable topic, I would have already proposed the article for deletion, but the topic is notable and I could write an article - just not under these conditions. So could an admin please take a good look a the issue? ] (]) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes please - you might also be interested to check the talk page near the end of "Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph", where the complainant openly threatens to start an edit war in order to "speed things up a little" and then says "Let's see what the admins have to say about this." This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose to cause an article to be protected, so please would you look carefully before simply protecting the article. Please would you also review Zara's history of edit-warring, her previous involvement in this article specifically and her tendency to prefer to work on articles she is allowed to "own", as indicated yet again by her wording above.. ] (]) 13:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::"This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose." I couldn't have put it better. That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is. And it is certainly not me because I don't even have an individual point-of-view. Really, I wouldn't know what that POV should be. All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say on "Eurocentric", and I came to the conclusion that is is an appropriate term to describe one side of the controversy in the lead paragraph. From what he has written on the talk page, I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand. SO it is necessary to speed things up a little. ] (]) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| And here we are ''again'', in under a week, like clockwork. People still doubting my suggestion that everyone at that article should be topicbanned to let the cooler heads prevail? It isn't stopping, and nothing we are doing is working to end the nonsense. According to Wikichecker , four editors are responsible for approximately 50% of the edits to the article, and many of the same names pop up when you look at the. | |||
| I suggest the top 10 contributors to the article and the talkpage be topicbanned for six months. Let non-SPAs do something about this article. Alternatively, delete and salt the nonsense. If nothing else, the name that keeps on coming up here as being non-constructive is Wdford, so a topicban there ''at the very least'' would reduce a lot of this ridiculous disruption. → ] ]<small> 15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Alternately, since Wdford was unfairly accused before (go check the arbitration record) and has been unfairly accused yet again, instead of listening to gossip you might instead review the actual talk page and edits and make a decision based on the facts. Topicban Zara, who is blatantly gaming the system here, and the threatened edit war won't materialise. Seems simple, but it requires admins to look beyond the superficial and the gossip. ] (]) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Incredibly, I am only number 8 of the contributors to this article. By the way, the main reason that I am editing there now is that another editor on my talk page that I would "find it a more congenial editing environment" at the article by now. Most likely, that impression was wrong. I don't mind the additional work I have to for the article, but I don't really need it either. And I especially don't need having to deal with editors like Wdford. | |||
| In a review of "''Not out of Africa: How Afrocentrism became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History''" by ], August Meier, who some people from African-American studies should know, remarks: | |||
| :''"Not out of Africa" is an effective polemic. Not recognizing that Afrocentric views are rooted in a long a respected tradition, she simply falls to answer the question raised in this books subtitle . To argue with the claims of the Afrocentrists is one thing, but to overlook or ignore the work of the band of Afro-American intellectuals and popularizers who enunciated a line of thought that was deeply rooted among rank-and-file Negroes would, I believe, reveal an <u>essential Eurocentric orientations</u> in this study. Thus, as a work of scholarship "Not out of Africa" is deeply flawed."'' (Emphasis added) | |||
| This is from the December 1996 issue of the ]: (). If the ], or at least the board of editors of their journal, doesn't have a problem with describing one side of the controversy as "Eurocentric", why would Misplaced Pages? The only reason can be that some editors at Misplaced Pages disregard reliable sources and rather write articles based on their own POVs. Of course, you could simply ban ''all'' involved editors, but that wouldn't solve the problem, because sooner or later some more come along. Even deletion wouldn't solve the problem, sooner or later someone is going to recreate an article on the issue, because the topic is, as one historian would put it, the battlefield of a "culture war" in the United States. ] (]) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I think these types of content disputes should go to content related noticeboards such as the article content noticeboard before coming here so that additional opinions on the content and citation issues can be solicitied in hopes that a consensus or compromise can be reached. That article, like many on Misplaced Pages, seems to be very contentious. But arguments over citations and content are not really administrative issues. Appropriate dispute resolution needs to be tried, and consensus sought. I'm not seeing clear behavioral issues other than frustration on both sides. Getting more opinions to try to work out the differences seems like the best way forward. ] (]) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Both editors that have posted here are currently edit warring at the article. If you continue, you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Wdford has already been banned from this article before. His block was commuted here . Now, less than two weeks later, he's at it again. Is there any reason why he shouldn't be rebanned immediately? I'm rather inclined to ban Zara1709, also, since he/she seems to be pretty consistently edit warring. ] ] 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Though looking closer, it appears that at least Zara is trying to include ''sourced'' content, not unsourced like Wdford, so perhaps that should be a mitigating factor. ] ] 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::They're both repeat offenders, but banning people isn't the best way to do this. Too heavy-handed. I'd prefer we settle this like civilized people, on a level-playing field, rather than the admins stepping in and dealing out punishment arbitrarily. The furthest I think we should go is a protection of the article; otherwise, I plan on discussing the matter thoroughly and possibly mediating a compromise between Wdford and Zara (who are warring right now). ] ]</sub> 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Left messages on and . I'm hoping to get some productivity out of this. ] ]</sub> 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm far from convinced I agree that banning is too heavy-handed. These kinds of POV disputes are rarely solved with out it coming to blows (figuratively, of course). Remember that this article is under probation from ArbCom and has been for quite some time, and that this article has been discussed here several times. It seems pretty unrealistic to think things like warnings and discussions are going to get us anywhere. ] ] 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Topic-banning them won't do anything, though. It'll save us a headache, but I doubt they'll just give up. As has been said before, they're both repeat-offenders; they've already been talked to about this and punished. I just don't think that's the way. Listening to what they have to say and settling the issue in a human fashion, rather than telling them to back off for a week, is more promising, at least in my eyes. By no means is my idea binding; even if they agree to it, other administrators can block them. That's their discretion. I'm just not in support of that. ] ]</sub> 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I had retreated from the article roughly 6 months ago; I returned because I perceived an opportunity to fix the article; it appears that I was wrong with that. Previously I have broken 3rr in other controversies, but this was because in both cases statements from reliable sources that I had added were removed without justification from the respective articles. Wdford is trying to pull the same stunt here - removing the view of reliable sources from the article without going into a discussion based on these sources. I have mentioned 3 academic sources so far that describe one side involved in the controversy as "Eurocentric." However, even if I would throw another dozen sources at Wdford, he would still refuse to acknowledge the view of reliable sources. The topic of this article, ], extremely controversial. I actually have found two historians by know who describe it as ]. I think I can honestly say that I am the only editor at Misplaced Pages I know who has an overview about this controversy, but there is no reason why I would have to work on the article. Unlike other editors I don't have a special point-of-view that I need to propagate through Misplaced Pages. I do think that having a good article on the topic would help the Americans find a truce in their cultural war, but that is not enough motivation for me to keep up with this. So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Misplaced Pages should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), I will simply retreat from the article. For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, , to whom he later himself . As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not. Since it is rather unlikely that there will be another editor who could write a balanced article on the controversy (all you can expect from the other currently involved editors is material on skin color, skull shapes and Y-chromosomes), I would suggest that you propose that article for deletion. ] (]) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I know that at one point Vassyana was considerded as a mediator, I wonder if he could not be called in to manage this case; everyone woul dhave to agree and agree to abide by his process. For myelf, I have three comments: first, I think it is always a good idea for people toagree n general principles or a framework for moving ahead, and then just follow where that leads. Zara seems to have set up just such a framework and fram an admittedly quick glance it looks like the has broken work down into good stages. Two: introductions are not worth getting caught up in, especially when an article is being revised because introductions have to introduce the whole article. If the intro is the point of contention, just drop it for now and work on those parts you can agree on. When you have done that you may find the intro easier. Finally, after multiple protects and blocks, I think everyone should agree to a zero-tolerance policy on incivility. <s>Wdford, if you fel you have to further your argument by labeling Zara "topic-ban Zara" as you have here, I conclude you have no game left to contribute to this discussion as an adult. You may as well leave.</s> (My apologies to Wdford whom I misunderstoo) Zara, I have not checked everything you have written but off course this would go for you too. Why should anyone care about this article if it is only a space for personal attacks and squabbles? Try - I say this to all people involved in the dispute - to show how this is a conflict of ideas, and others may wish to get involved and perhaps even help resolve disputes. If anyone slings another drop of mud I would take that as an admission that they have nothing left to support their side so they are not worth listening to. I hope these comments provide the basis for a framework for everyone to work together. ] | ] 00:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please note, Slrubenstein, that I did not label Zara as "topic-ban Zara". I was suggesting to ROUX that actually topic-banning Zara is a possible solution to her threat to start an edit war, in response to his suggestion to topic-ban me. I’m sure that when you read that entry carefully you will see this, and will appreciate that there is a world of difference between my sentence and your assumption. | |||
| Re Zara's repeated complaints about her proposed opening sentence – I have stated more than once on the talk page that I accept the accuracy of the quote, but that I object to using it as the opening sentence of the lead section as I feel that it mis-defines the controversy. I hear and agree with Slrubenstein’s comment that lead sections must introduce the controversy as a whole, and that is specifically why I feel that this particular wording is misleading and inappropriate. | |||
| I did however include Zara’s sentence in my last attempt at correcting the lead section, but not as the opening sentence, and I reworded it slightly to better clarify the context. Although every sentence I added was referenced in detail, Zara nonetheless reverted this entire effort with the comment “wdford, your 'content' has so many problems that I don't even know where to start”. This is her usual alibi for not explaining why she is reverting referenced material, although she accuses me of disruption for deleting her preferred sentences without first providing a detailed explanation. | |||
| For those who are concerned that I am adding “unsourced” material, please check my contributions to the lead section that Zara reverted at – they are fully referenced. | |||
| Re her insinuations about my adding an unsourced section on the controversial issues around ancient Egyptian art, my intention was to expand this to briefly describe inter alia the accusations by Prof Manu Ampim that artwork showing the ancient Egyptians as black people have been systematically destroyed, while fake artwork has been inserted into museums etc to deliberately misrepresent the ancient Egyptians as being lighter-skinned than he believes they really were. He even accused a respected scholar – Prof Frank Yurco – of deliberately misrepresenting evidence, even though Yurco was actually quite correct, and he did so after Yurco was dead and couldn’t defend himself. (See e.g. http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm for a taste, although the Prof is apparently a published author on the subject and there are many better references available.) I think such a conspiracy theory would qualify as controversial, and it is a widely disseminated theory. However this initiative was instantly reverted by Zara before any progress could be made, on the basis that I did not first obtain her consensus to add the section. I let it go at the time with the intention of following a consensus process, but please do not mistake my conciliatory approach for a mea culpa – I could have built that heading into a valuable and fully referenced section given half a chance. Hopefully that chance will come again. | |||
| Finally, I am more than happy to work with Master of Puppets to resolve matters. | |||
| ] (]) 01:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Article full protected for 3 days === | |||
| I would like to encourage all the warring parties to calm down and try to work together. To encourage that - the article is fully protected (administrators can edit only) for 3 days. Further multiparty disruption after the protection expires will be followed by multiparty blocks. This is not acceptable behavior. ] (]) 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, well, it seems that protection was decided upon regardless. I'm not in the position to remove the restriction, and I offer my full apologies to both Zara and Wdford. I still encourage you both to reach a consensus, of course, and I'm still more than happy to provide assistance if any is required. ] ]</sub> 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks MoP, but 3 days of edit protection is not such a big deal. We have never before had an admin on the article who was prepared to get really involved in actually administering the process, so I am really looking forward to working with you. Huge respect. ] (]) 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This article needs administrator attention. There are two editors who continue to remove content from this article which I have reviewed to be properly sourced content and verifiable by a reliable sources (I could be mistaken, though). And while I may be mistaken, the editors continue to apparently ignore the talk page to discuss the issue. ] 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Could you provide diffs and identify the editors who are having a problem. The format below may help you organize your presentation. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Locus of dispute, or action in dispute | |||
| Disagreement over WP:BLP on ]. The two editors believe that a section added by user ] is libelous and should be removed. | |||
| ; Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ; Description of the dispute and the main evidence | |||
| <!-- SIGN BELOW USING ~~~~ --> | |||
| # I found that the article had had a substantial portion removed by ] so I initiated an investigation. | |||
| ## ] did use an edit summary describing the action. | |||
| ## ] did blank the talk page replacing it with what I think is an except from WP:BLP. | |||
| ## ] did make an entry on the article's talk page after blanking. | |||
| # After reviewing the quotes, statements, and facts asserted for the section in question, I found that they were both referenced and that the references were reliable. Substantiated by (Miami Herald) and (Washington Post). | |||
| # I by ] then added a reply to the ] and asked that further changes be discussed there. | |||
| # My revert was then ] without edit summary or talk page discussion. | |||
| # I assumed good faith and undid user ] edit. | |||
| # My edit was again reverted by user ] again without talk page discussion. | |||
| * Furthermore. After further investigation I found that user ] subsequently vandalized user page of ] multiple times. ] ] 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Further note. The talk page was blanked and I am not sure the best way to restore it. ] 23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims) | |||
| ; Comments by uninvolved editors | |||
| I think the source may support the addition of this content. Editors need to discuss whether the biography is balances, or gives ] to these controversial matters. The two accounts who have been removing the content appear to be ], and may very well be controlled by the same editor. We should not overlook the possibility that one of the real life people involved in this matter may be trying to influence the content of Misplaced Pages. I think it may help to leave messages for the two new editors welcoming them, and asking them not to remove sourced content, not to edit war, and not to use more than one account. We should also advise them how to address concerns about the content in a productive way. Should those steps fail, a block might then be necessary to prevent further problems, but I think we need to try the lesser steps first. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think those suggestions should be executed by someone else. I will not be taking action on this matter in order to prevent appearing bias and disingenuous. ] 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Remarks by closing editor | |||
| == RetlawSnellac, Neftchi (formerly Baku87) and copyright issues == | |||
| ; Locus of dispute, or action in dispute | |||
| ] | |||
| ; Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ; Description of the dispute and the main evidence | |||
| I don't contribute often on English Misplaced Pages, being mainly active in Armenian WP. While browsing through Commons categories I came across photos of new user RetlawSnellac who registered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/RetlawSnellac and on commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/User:RetlawSnellac | |||
| He uploaded 4 pictures to commons claiming to be the author . It caught my attention, because Retlaw Snellac is one of my Flickr contacts, and I do follow his photo stream . Retlaw Snellac is the acronym of his true name, Walter Callens, spelled in reverse. Browsing his folder on , I checked, and found that all 4 pictures were in fact taken by Retlaw Snellac I know from Flickr. I became curious, because I remember Walter publishes his photos on Flickr under standard, "strict" copyright, as once I checked his Flickr page, to see if I can import some of his photos to Commons. The other obvious reason was, that from lot of nice photos from different countries, only those 4, and only from Azerbaijan were uploaded. | |||
| Even more, he suddenly shows special interest in discussions related to Azerbaijan. | |||
| I wrote him on Flickr, to see if it was really him to upload his photos to Commons and participate in some discussions/voting. His reply was: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Hello, | |||
| Thanks for the information. | |||
| Retlaw Snellac from Wikimedia is NOT me. | |||
| Kind regards, | |||
| Walter | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| The problem here is that the RetlawSnellac on Misplaced Pages claimed to be the real Walter Callens, uploading his own works, using the date of the real Walters visit to Azerbaijan from flickr to come up , he even explicitly claims to be the real Retlaw, see . | |||
| Upon the incident I contacted another member who too contacted him. | |||
| I was advised to prepare something about this and report it here, as upon checking this user contribution there seem to be one obvious correlation between this suspicious account and ] (formerly Baku87). | |||
| Here is the evidence I gathered so far: | |||
| Since June 26th, Neftchi edited daily, until July 3rd. Retlaw registered on the 4th and edited until the 7th, Baku87 never edited during that time period. He returned on the 11th and soon request a name change from Baku87 to Neftchi. | |||
| *Ratlaw Snellac , which has the same borders as uploaded by Neftchi. This was probably done to support the revert war on the ADR article initiated by Neftchi when he adding the map on Jan 2009 . | |||
| * he announces having uploaded new picture of petroglyphs of Qobustan. Note that the original uploader of those petroglyphs was Netchi(formerly Baku87). Neftchi then shows an interest in pictures, by switching the pictures. | |||
| *On Church of Kish, Retlaw . The article history indicates that there was an edit warring in process, this user, who registered one day ago, apparently knew the edit war was going on and reverted to Neftchi version. | |||
| *"All by sudden" continues the discussion started by Baku , , , , (adds a website owned by a well-known Adil Baguirov) | |||
| *The article Azerbaijani Special Forces on June 18 by Neftchi, Fedayee for an element, which was provided by Retlaw . Check the article and see that in fact this user who only registered on July 4, only showed interest in Neftchi contributions. | |||
| *He edits the Azerbaijani Armed Forces , in which Neftchi is the most active editor. | |||
| *On Nagorno-Karabakh War, Neftchi added an unreliable source which was reverted twice. Retlaw . | |||
| *Baku87 started a thread in August 2008 . Almost a year later RatlawSnellac backs him up , . | |||
| *Retlaw voted for an AfD in which Baku87 . | |||
| *Retlaw created which was copied from , Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan. | |||
| *Both users show interest in documenting Chinese alleged crimes during the Urumqi riots. Neftchi provides a source in its talkpage. So did RetlawSnellac. | |||
| *RetlawSnellac goes on to add dozens of individuals in the List of Azeris. , , , , , . Neftchi was by far the most active contributor to that list for the last couple of months. | |||
| *Neftchi a picture of a carpet manufacturing in Ganja and RetlawSnellac adds one on the Carpet Museum. | |||
| * RetlawSnellac even leaves a message on the Neftchi talkpage inviting him to use his pictures. This leaves Neftchi to do what he wants with those pictures without having the trouble of using two accounts. Note that the real RetlawSnellac denied having anything to do with this account. | |||
| *Funny , the fake RetlawSnellac even goes to attempt to have the picture of the so much loved by Neftchi petroglyphs of Qobustan to FA statues. | |||
| *Also see , most of the edits in the last few months were done by Neftchi. And , where he supports Neftchi out of nowhere to add the POV tag. | |||
| *Note also that Retlaw claims to be from Belgium/Netherlands. , prior to Neftchi name change, this was Baku87's , which read: ''Deze gebruiker spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal.'' | |||
| The pattern between both users, as if he switched from one account to the other, and while one user was contributing the other never was. | |||
| ] | |||
| I do not know Neftchi and never interacted with him, so nothing personal, but impersonation, and compromising whole project by thief of IP and abuse of freedom and trust, is something that in my opinion, can not and should not be tolerated. --] (]) 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have tagged one of his images at commons (]) with {{tls|npd}}, since I have found it on the flickr website. I'm out of time, I'm afraid, to contribute more now, but these are serious allegations which do need careful investigation. If he is truly who he says he is, he should be able to verify permission at the flickr site or through e-mail. If it should prove that this individual is ''deliberately'' misrepresenting himself to commit intentional copyright fraud, then I think it would be appropriate to immediately indefinitely block any and all accounts that may be involved. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello, I just received a message in my talk about alleged sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion related to me and RetlawSnellac. I certainly hope this has got nothing to do with me being ethnic Azerbaijani and ] being Armenian as we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives. I noticed that the only users who have ever accused me in Misplaced Pages were ethnic Armenian. For example I was accused of having a sockpuppet account called Baki66 thats why I changed my name from Baku87 to Neftchi to prevent confusion. I want to make it clear that I dont know who ] is and its certainly not me, he posted a message in my talk see and I never replied back to it. I have not talked or had any contact with that user I do have encountered him several times in[REDACTED] in articles in which I was active, I think he is just checking out my contributions list and works from there. Also notice how all his edits are done after me. This kind of approach is often done by anon-users. So just going through my huge contributions-list and finding any connections with RetlawSnellac is easy work but in no way is that evidence or proof. With this kind of approach I could probably link you to sockpuppetry aswell. I have been a member in[REDACTED] for a long time and I have never engaged in this kind of forgery so under what motive and reason would I suddenly start now. RetlawSnellac said in my talk page that I was welcome to upload any photo of his Photoalbum in Flickr and gave me link and also note that the username in Flickr matches the one in[REDACTED] (that is retlaw snellac), why not approach him instead of me and ask him to verify his identity on both Flickr aswell as in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::He has been approached in addition to you as both of you have been mentioned in this thread. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hello. First of all, the main "hero" here, is owner of fake account RetlawSnellac, who did several serious violations and for whom I can not think of any excuse, for that. About you, no believe me you being azeri and me being armenian doesn't really mean anything for me. I had lot of contacts, and worked/lived together with azeris and turks. I'm soo far from being nationalistic or xenophobic in any other way. Also I'm in WP, since late 2006, but in en:wp 99% of my contribs are interwikis to hy:wp. So "we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives" isn't correct, we really haven't meet, neither we worked on same articles. I'm not much into history or politics, and I do avoid Armenian-Azerbaijan related topics, as I find edit wars, one of the biggest and stupidest problems of wikis in general. I'm much into photography and I'm much for Free Software and Free Content, because I do really respect IP rights. Add because I've been following authors works for some period, I felt myself much more obliged, to report this. So If I noticed similar incident done by Armenian, my reaction would be the same. I'm probably most copyright-paranoid in hy:wp. I Hope my motivation is pretty clear now, and no one goes to look for ethnic problems here, and we can come back to incidents. Let me sum it up again, I'm sure RetlawSnellac on wikimedia, is impersonator and thief, as I got reply from author, I'm almost sure RetlawSnellac here is puppet (my expereince of moderating several forums tells me so), what comes to you, you're account has most correlations with RetlawSnellac's contirbs. But I don't think I have any moral right to accuse you in anything, until check is done, by admins. And if it proves you have nothing to do with all this, I'll ask your pardon, for my suspicion. --] (]) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::('''edit conflict''') I'm back. I've also located several others and tagged them for verification of permission. If there were a contact address for the flickr account owner, I would happily contact him through OTRS so that we could quickly resolve this. If you are in communication with him, can you perchance ask him to get in touch with info-en-c@wikimedia.org, explaining that there is an individual on Commons impersonating him and uploading his images without permission? If his e-mail address can be clearly connected to the point of publication, this could resolve matters very quickly, at least as far as the copyright problems are concerned. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just because this alleged imposter (RetlawSnellac) is going through my contributions list should not make me a suspect of sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion, these are serious accusations. Just think about it, what motive would I have for all this? I upload my own photos, edits my own articles and I have been doing this succesfully for several years now. Perhaps I am a bit overreacting, Im just taken by surprise by all of this. I would like to see RetlawSnellac's explanation to all of this aswell. ] (]) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmmmm.... fascinating. And well researched and presented evidence, Xelgen. At the very least, RetlawSnellac seems to have been engaging in activities that not only break Misplaced Pages rules but which are quite clearly illegal. He has been pretending to be someone he isn't (Walter Callens), has been claiming that he owns the copyright of images which he does not own, has been uploading some of those images to Misplaced Pages, and has been inviting Neftchi to upload even more of those images to Misplaced Pages, thus breaking copyright laws. Whether RetlawSnellac and Neftchi are one and the same might be provable using CU evidence - but if they are the same person, the evidence suggesting he has been carefully avoiding being online using two accounts at the same time-period means that he has probably also been using two completely different ISPs. Similarity in editing styles, the identical use of particular words or phrases, might be another way of proving they are the same person (or proving that they are not). ] 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There's smth wrong with my ISP, as it's second day I can't access Flickr. So using proxy, I've got to real . There is an email address, at the bottom of the page. Guess you can try it, to contact him. And I've just wrote a FlickrMail to him, leaving link to this report, and your instructions to info-en-c@wikimedia.org and describe the situation. --] (]) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| Soliciting 12 and over females to indulge his/her foot fetish at ]. ] (]) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Never mind, already indef blocked. ] (]) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Saw it and already blocked. --] (]) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::An admin should review the unblock request - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 21:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Declined--we don't need that behavior here. And just in case he gets any ideas, I've shut off his talk page and his ability to send email. Can't take any chances ... ]] 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Despite his promise to toe the line, he got the boot. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :He should have been allowed to edit pages ] ] (]) 21:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Clever! | |||
| I don't really understand why you blocked his ability to edit his own talk page. Seems rather OTT to me. ] | ] 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Slightly creepy, perhaps, and I did consider offering him a {{tl|Second chance}} to demonstrate ''bona fides'' but was overtaken by events. Perhaps I'm getting too soft in my old age- no jokes, please. ]] 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I probably wouldn't have offered a second chance, I would have if he'd kept to to sandbox but as he harassed someone on her userpage then no. However his only edit to his talk page was a promise to stop it, and I really don't think that merits changing the block conditions to prevent him from editing it. We should at least give him the chance to explain himself. ] | ] 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::We all get "soft" in our old age. That's why they invented that wonder drug... | |||
| ::Geritol! :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Blue boys explained the reason for the talk page block: "And just in case you get any ideas, you have lost any access to your talk page.". Seems reasonable to me since this person did sexualy harass people which is not what Wiipedia is for Smith Jones 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. Soliciting sexual contact from minors is not something we need to provide any sort of forum for. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Could a passing Checkuser take a quick look? I've been seeing rather a lot of it this past week, for example {{user|Bob87654321}} -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have indef'ed Bob87654321. The obsession shared by these accounts are very similar to those of a couple of years ago, as I recall. Do any of the older hands recall these editors, and whether their styles are similar? It may be that there is just a coincidence of similarly orientated fetishists. ] (]) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::This user looks a lot like {{user|Tenant23}} who was also recently indefed for harassment. ] 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| User ] has been making edits to this article since April 21, 2009, most of which have been changing the order the '']'' protagonists are mentioned to "Claire Redfield and Leon S. Kennedy". Leon's character and scenario are mentioned first on , in the , , and in the . Therefore, me and other users (such as ] and ]) think this is the order to go with for the '']'' section of this article. Despite objections by trusted editors and ], the user keeps reverting the article and ignores community input. I therefore think this is to be considered disruptive editing and request a block of the user's IP. ] (]) 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin urgently needed to fix mistaken entry == | |||
| {{resolved}} Infobox made math calculation unreliable. ] (]) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Did_you_know/Queue | |||
| then see Queue 3, which is scheduled to go next. | |||
| then see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peter_Connell&action=history | |||
| That article clearly does not comply. It is an article from 2008. I can see why the 5 day old age can be stretched a bit, but 9-10 months is too much. It is also not nearly a 5x expansion. If recognition is desired, GA or FA can be attempted but massive bending of the rules to get DYK is not right. | |||
| An administrator is needed to replace that DYK with another. Thank you ] (]) 03:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *"Illegal" is a bit strong, even if it was a problem, but DYK expansion is based on the prose content of the article, not its absolute size. If you follow through the article's history, the 5x expansion rule has been more than satisfied. ] (]) 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::My math shows it has NOT met a 5x expansion. On 11 July 2009, it was 3,379 bytes. It is now 11,973 bytes. That is a 3.5x expansion which is good but not up to DYK criteria. ] (]) 03:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why is the DYK something that requires admin anything (other than it being on the main page)?—] (]) 03:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Only an admin can add or remove things from the queue where it is now. ] (]) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah... but DYK counts only prose, which means only the single sentence in (july 11) is counted which amounts to 86 characters. Expansion began on 2 August, and ] now has 3855 characters. This should be discussed at ] if there's a problem with that. ≈ ] ] <span style="color:#800000;">]</span> 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes. It's been expanded about 40x. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry! I just found out that the byte count in the history can be corrupted by an infobox. I brought it here because of the quick response that DYK talk doesn't have keeping in mind that the DYK was next in line. Thank you. Please don't block me for making a false, but well meaninged, police report. ] (]) 03:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::1. we don't do that and 2. we aren't the police. ]] 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes you are. Yes you do. ] (]) 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Facebook event to recruit Arab and Muslim editors to contribute to the ] article. == | |||
| :''You need a Facebook account to view the event page that is under discussion'' | |||
| In January 2009 (incorrectly typo'd at Facebook as '10), unknown Misplaced Pages editors organized a Facebook "event" with the stated goal of recruiting "Arab and Muslim contributions to the Misplaced Pages page on ]". The event has three administrators, but only one of the names match any WP user names: ]. 118 people signed up and there were 48 maybes. | |||
| These recruiting efforts made strong headway into the article as major NPOV-violations have been included in the article in the name of a consensus. For example, the second line of the article proclaims that the conflict is known as the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab media. The use of this term has not received coverage, let alone any mention, in mainstream sources, yet this name is given prominence in the second line of the article. Similarly, a number of <s>repugnant</s> tasteless pics were placed in the article, including one of a dead, burnt Arab baby, in the name of a ]. There are other NPOV issues with the article, but this is not the forum the resultant content problem; these are merely two examples of the problem created by this "event". | |||
| A year and half ago, a major witch-hunt went underway that culminated at ] in which a bunch of editors were banned for being part of a group intending to correct anti-Israel POV's. Due to this, non-anti-Israel editors of the Gaza War article are frequently harangued and accused of working for the Israeli government, CAMERA, or another organized entity. | |||
| While the CAMERA situation was problematic, this is of far greater concern. The CAMERA situation involved a few editors, but this event involved way over a 100 people, and that's counting only those that signed up officially. | |||
| One WP user who is an example of a probably Facebook recruit is ]. S/he first appeared on Jan. 4 and edited until Jan 11. Almost every single edit concerned the Gaza War, including arguing vociferously for the inclusion of "Gaza Massacre" .] is another. He appeared on January 7 and has mainly at the Gaza War article. Another example is ] ("Palestine in my heart"), who with clear POV on his sleeve, started editing on January 11 and whose first edit was to the Gaza War article. | |||
| I guess I shouldn't since it is me that they are deliberately pestering with nuisance pings after being asked repeatedly to stop. I know I could have muted them, and I now have, but I shouldn't have had to, they should just stop acting so obnoxious. ] ] 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| What I'm hoping would result from this post is that we find out which Wikipedians are behind these recruitment efforts and ban them, just like we banned the editors involved in ]. Secondly, we need to figure out how to deal with these off wiki POV recruitment efforts in the future. Sincerely, --'']] ]'' 04:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations == | |||
| Obama articles have similar gang members, both the "Obama is a Muslim" gang and "Obama is perfect" gang. If Misplaced Pages had an Editorial Board for Exceptional Cases, this board could decide on content for only the most contentious articles. Then recruitment would not matter. On the other hand, if you oppose an editorial board for exceptional cases, then don't have it. ] (]) 05:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, let's at least be aware that this group hasn't had any FB activity since the beginning of January 09. | |||
| :With that said: With these canvassing approaches, it's fairly easy to discern who's a meatpuppet of the larger organization. They shall be treated as such. But: innocent until proven guilty (or walks and looks guilty, like a duck). One witch-hunt is no better than another witch-hunt, particularly a stale one. ] (]) 06:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| For anyone reviewing this ANI, it's important to remember the CAMERA affair, which involved far-reaching sanctions to any user even remotely involved, and there was considerable damage done even to users who were not involved in any way. Obviously I am just as angry at those who orchestrated the CAMERA affair against everything Misplaced Pages stands for, especially User:Zeq, but the fact remains that the affair significantly harmed every editor suspected of being pro-Israeli (regardless of whether they were involved), and is still mentioned a lot today (like ] up for deletion now). Unsurprisingly, it also made its way into a series of accusations into the recent West Bank/Judea and Samaria arbitration case. | |||
| Dear admins, | |||
| Now, I'm not saying that the same should be applied to pro-Palestinian editors just for the hell of it; especially I do not wish anyone's name to be needlessly dragged through the mud, and there are quite a few positive pro-Palestinian editors on Misplaced Pages. In terms of direct sanctions however, it is only fair that they are applied to every editor clearly involved in this Facebook event. Brewcrewer listed a few who were certainly involved, and should certainly be sanctioned, even if this happenned 8 months ago (whoever doesn't edit anymore should probably be indef'ed). However, as he said himself, there are likely a lot more editors involved, and if a few serious admins take some time to find more users, this isn't really a "witch hunt", but a preventative measure for more such acts. I'm not sure some people realize the weight of the situation in principle—if nothing at all is done here, we will be seeing all sorts of Facebook groups pop up regarding influencing POV on Misplaced Pages, including the aforementioned "Obama gangs". Personally I can think of one user who was quite certainly involved in this affair and still edits actively today. I'm sure there are more. I will e-mail the name to any administrator who wishes to have a better look at this. | |||
| I am reaching out to request a review of the recent deletions of articles related to the Astana platform. While I have already contacted the administrator responsible for the deletions, I believe a third-party review would ensure fairness and transparency. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. | |||
| I understand that concerns have been raised about alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts, particularly regarding my interest in Randa Kassis and related topics. I would like to clarify that my interest in Randa Kassis stems from her international prominence, especially during the period when her meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and her role in the Astana platform gained significant media coverage. This explains the connection between my edits to her page and other related articles. | |||
| My contributions have focused solely on adding reliable references and improving information with a neutral tone, as reflected in the edit history. Additionally, the articles in question were edited by multiple users and administrators over time, highlighting a shared interest in Syria’s geopolitical significance and its key figures. The collaborative nature of these edits reflects diverse perspectives rather than coordinated efforts. | |||
| If there is concrete evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct, I kindly request that it be presented. I fully support Misplaced Pages’s principles of transparency and remain committed to addressing any legitimate concerns. | |||
| It is also worth noting that the articles about Randa Kassis and Fabien Baussart include critical and controversial perspectives. At no point have I attempted to remove or alter critical content or promote a specific narrative. My sole intent has been to ensure accuracy and neutrality. | |||
| Finally, the claim that this is stale does not really hold up. So most of the clearly-involved editors haven't edited since; however, the article in question, ], still suffers from the serious problems inflicted during this affair, and any attempt to NPOV it will likely meet with a "no consensus" today, even though consensus to add some of the POV parts would not have been established in the first place was it not for this affair. I therefore strongly encourage administrators to have a deeper look into this. —] <sup>(])</sup> 08:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I can correlate data and such. Could you drop me that e-mail? I was more ''hoping'' it wasn't stale, personally :-p ] (]) 08:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article is a complete garbage. Editors on both sides have to clean up crap and then get sucked into debates over international law concerns. It is not a project on how to present NPOV information regarding a military conflict but an outlet to mention reports reports from human rights observers. This article has had plenty of time to stabilize and has not. Editors should be ashamed. This includes people I enjoy (Nab is great, Ashdod is resourceful, Sean is funny, and several other decent dudes) and myself. Screw outside recruiting. We should be better than that and we certainly could have gone the distance on this article. GA is a myth right now. When it all comes down to it the editors who have devoted time to it have little sympathy for shenanigans so random editors are not the concern. There are a few editors that are so biased they should not be permitted to edit anything related. They have left. Look at the archives. I don't hear a thing from many of them. Wikifan said it and he was right. The article will change. I am not going to waste time going through the archives or my recollection of hurt feelings to look for one article only editors or any other jerkoffs. They have moved on and we still have a terrible article. We can fix it without worrying about them unless you have a specific editor to call out for campaigning. Chances are they got caught up in the sweep of overtly rude and biased editors a couple months ago.] (]) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I am happy to cooperate with all of you. Thanks for your time. | |||
| Perhaps those who are alleging a mass conspiracy here can point to specific correlating edits and editors, which of course would be supported by actual evidence? Rounding up a handful of editors that Brewcrew doesn't like and noting that they edited an article in January isn't terribly convincing. Remember that what sunk CAMERA was the access to their e-mail archives, which pointed to exactingly specific "edit this article on this date", "make friends with this editor (i.e. me) and sway them to your side", etc... So unless someone can gain access to the facebook group and see if there were specific coordinations and instructions, this is much ado about nothing. ] (]) 11:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :] is what you are looking for. This noticeboard doesn't handle reviews of recent deletions of articles. And I'm not seeing any reports about "alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts", on this noticeboard or on your talk page, so it's unclear how we can help you in that regard.]] 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :While I sympathise with and support the objectives set out in brewcrewer's final 'What I'm hoping' section I think we need a bit of a reality check here. | |||
| ::To clarify what this is about, please see ] - 21:22 UTC 5 Jan 2025 version , and 14:00 UTC 22 Jan 2025 version . My apologies for not using <nowiki>{{Template:Diff}}</nowiki>, it's a bit too maths-y for me. ] (]) 🦘 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* The ] article is already subject to discretionary sanctions so any suggestion that a Facebook group has an influence over the content amounts to a statement that discretionary sanctions are not working. If that is the case (and evidence would need to be provided to support that) then that needs to be addressed in addition to investigations into off-wiki recruiting. | |||
| :::For added context, see ], from where the user was sent here. -- ] (]) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* For this Facebook group scenario to be a genuine problem that affects content there needs to be evidence to support the notion that standard mandatory policies such as ], ] and ] are not being implemented in the article. Many content issues have been discussed at enormous length and repeatedy. All discussions are documented and available via the index and search options. If there is evidence to support the assertion that previous or current content resulted from the influence of people that signed up for the Facebook event then it will be in there somewhere. While it's true that there have been strong POVs at play at times in discussions, plenty of wikilawyering and a great deal of drive-by POV vandalism by both pro/anti Israeli/Palestinian editors, my experience is that by and large, there has been quite a lot of effort to reach consensus that meet mandatory content policy requirements. Consequently statements like 'These recruiting efforts made strong headway into the article' and 'examples of the problem created by this "event"' are inconsistent with reality in my view (in addition to not being supported by evidence at the moment). Both sides in content disputes (such as the Gaza Massacre issue etc) have generally used evidence/RS/wiki-policy based arguments with disagreements often amounting to disagreements over how to measure/achieve WP:V compliance. Yes, there's been a lot of nonsense in the past but things seem to have calmed down a great deal. | |||
| ::::As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in Randa Kassis following her meeting with Donald Trump Jr., which was widely covered by newspapers and the press. I understand that she is seen as a controversial figure, particularly due to her relationship with Russia, as noted by Psychloppos. However, it is important to recognise her contributions as part of the opposition in achieving two significant initiatives: the Astana Platform, which she proposed to the first Kazakh president and successfully implemented to halt further Moscow Platform rounds, and the Constitutional Committee in 2017, endorsed by the troika and the United Nations as a pathway to peace. Notably, the Astana process was accepted by a large number of brigades, and the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) as well as the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) participated in the Constitutional Committee. There are numerous secondary sources confirming that. | |||
| ::::I would like to emphasise that I am not a UPE and that my contributions have been made in good faith. | |||
| ::::I’m asking for your assistance in reviewing the deletion of the Astana content. Moreover I would like to highlight that decisions on Misplaced Pages are meant to be collective, not individual, which is why I believe in Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable platform. Thanks for your help.{{ping|Shirt58}} Your message here. ] (]) 09:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry again, due to my inexperience with templates, I asked AI to help me with pinging, and I copied and pasted without deleting« your message». 😔🙏 ] (]) 09:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A word to the wise - people tend to look poorly upon chatbot generated complaints at this board. ] (]) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you for reminding me of that. I admit I don’t have much experience with templates, but I’ll make more effort to learn and improve going forward. If needed, I’ll reach out to an admin or experienced editor for help. I appreciate your understanding as I continue contributing.🙏 ] (]) 15:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I was pinged to this discussion, but have no recollection of any involvement. It's not a topic which interests me. ] (]) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If there is an organised group of editors trying to make the article pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli then I think a quick look at the citation density in the article and the kinds of references used (which includes a large number of Israeli sources) suggests that they've been pretty ineffective. Yes, as cptnono it could be improved e.g. spin off intlaw stuff, focus on what happened or whatever but the idea that an organised group has successfully shaped the article seems pretty implausible. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, if memory serves, on the CAMERA case the effect those editors had on WP was virtually nil, yet all the involved editors were perma-banned. Other than the fact that this case involves possibly vastly more individuals, is there some other compelling difference between the two? <font color="green">]</font> 20:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your reply; I greatly appreciate it. While I’m not experienced with templates, I like to occasionally make contributions when I can. | |||
| === off wiki canvassing? === | |||
| :The admin “Squirrel Conspiracy” merged the page for the Astana Platform into the Randa Kassis page. I am unsure who can help me review this deletion. If you check my contributions, you’ll see that I tried reaching out to the admin but received no response. I also requested a review to address and resolve the misunderstanding, but I haven’t had any luck so far. | |||
| <br /> | |||
| :Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner ] (]) 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, what do people do when we see off wiki campaigning?<br /> | |||
| ::That appears to be normal editing under ] rather than administrative action. As such it is a content dispute and off-topic here. Take it up on the talk page of the article. —] (]) 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| See, for example, this where people are canvassing for edits to problematic Satanic Abuse articles. ] (]) 10:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have been pinged to this discussion, so here's my two cents. I support (which I originally proposed) and by {{ping|The Squirrel Conspiracy}}. The same could perhaps be done with the ] : that group did exist but from the few sources I could find it seems to have been pretty negligible and to have evaporated pretty quickly. ] ''may'' warrant an article but I agree that in its latest form the page was pretty much "unfixable". Mentions of the peace talks in Astana should be developed in ], and it should of course specified that the so-called Astana process was sponsored by Russia and by the opposition's High negotiation committee. | |||
| :Protect -> investigate -> sanction violators -> unprotect. -- ] - <small>]</small> 11:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can't tell if it was the work of a paid editor, but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person or several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages, make her look more important than she actually was within the Syrian opposition, obfuscate her ties to Russia and perhaps even embellish her professional credentials. The ] page and all mentions of her and her role in the Syrian civil war, the Syrian opposition and the peace talks endorsed by Russia need to be cleaned up and closely monitored. ] (]) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a good method. Sanctions have often been dealt out in these cases. Two arbcom cases were CAMERA and ].<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi everyone, | |||
| :::I would agree with the above. It would take a checkuser painstakingly looking at, for example, ], and seeing who edited it and what CU reveals about them, scrutinizing January in particular. <font color="green">]</font> 17:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in Randa Kassis following her meeting with Donald Trump Jr., which was widely covered by newspapers and the press. I understand that she is seen as a controversial figure, particularly due to her relationship with Russia, as noted by Psychloppos. However, it is important to recognise her contributions as part of the opposition in achieving two significant initiatives: the Astana Platform, which she proposed to the first Kazakh president and successfully implemented to halt further Moscow Platform rounds, and the Constitutional Committee in 2017, endorsed by the troika and the United Nations as a pathway to peace. Notably, the Astana process was accepted by a large number of brigades, and the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) as well as the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) participated in the Constitutional Committee. There are numerous secondary sources confirming that. | |||
| ::::I would like to emphasise that I am not a UPE and that my contributions have been made in good faith. | |||
| ::::I’m asking for your assistance in reviewing the deletion of the Astana content. Moreover I would like to highlight that decisions on Misplaced Pages are meant to be collective, not individual, which is why I believe in Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable platform. Thanks for your help. ] (]) 07:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To put some flesh on the bones of the suggestion made above by ] that they are {{tq|convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person or several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages|}}... details can be found in this recent post elsewhere by ], mentioning various accounts including Ecrivain Wagner and ]. | |||
| :::::A recent sockpuppet investigation into Hazar Sam seems to have come up with nothing. However, I note that ] was not included in that SPI. | |||
| :::::The activity of multiple SPA type accounts in relation to Randa Kassis and related subjects extends beyond English Misplaced Pages to French Misplaced Pages (and perhaps beyond, I don’t know). In that connection it may be worth noting that three of Ecrivain Wagner’s few non-Kassis related edits (on English Misplaced Pages) relate to the British TV show ] ( , and ) and that a month or so later Hazar Sam was editing the equivalent article on French Misplaced Pages, here , making the identical point (that it is a British series rather than a US one). Both the Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam accounts are active on both English and French Misplaced Pages. Hazar Sam is the primary author of the (English) Randa Kassis article (38.2% of the current text). | |||
| :::::The level of coincidence here seems rather extreme given that the TV series has no connection to Randa Kassis etc. It may be worth someone’s while to re-run the SPI including Ecrivain Wagner (not a process I am familiar with unfortunately, otherwise I would do it myself). | |||
| :::::I have no opinion on the issues of promotion or whether the Astana/Kassis redirect was right or wrong. I just happened to spot the coincidence above and thought I should mention it. ] (]) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Some further detail here. The Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam accounts show very similar patterns of activity on both English and French Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::::English Misplaced Pages: | |||
| ::::::Ecrivain Wagner account opened on 20 Feb 2016. It is then dormant for over 3 years. | |||
| ::::::Hazar Sam opened their account on 19 Mar 2016 and started editing on Randa Kassis a fortnight later. The Hazar Sam account is then almost entirely dormant for the better part of 3 years before starting to edit around the Syrian peace process on 19 May 2019. | |||
| ::::::The long dormant Ecrivian Wagner then starts editing (on the same sort of subject matter) on 25 Jun 2019 (i.e. a few weeks after Hazar Sam returns from a similarly long break). | |||
| ::::::Both accounts are then very active in that topic area in Jun/Jul 2019 before both cease editing altogether. Both then re-commence editing in the same topic area in Sep-Nov 2019. Both are then entirely dormant for a year until Sept-Oct 2020 when both start again. | |||
| ::::::The Wagner account is then entirely dormant for 3 and a half years until May 2024, when it makes a few edits, later making some edits on Randa Kassis in Sept 2024. Then, apart from the Slow Horses activity (noted in a previous post), it is dormant until a few days ago when it becomes animated re: the Astana/Kassis redirect. | |||
| ::::::The Hazar Sam account is also almost entirely dormant for an almost identical period from Oct 2020 to Mar 2024, barring a few Kassis related edits. It only makes a handful of edits during 2024 before starting a significant amount of Kassis-related activity in December 2024. | |||
| ::::::Activity on French Misplaced Pages is basically the same, with both accounts being active in Sep/Oct 2020 and Oct 2024 and otherwise being pretty much entirely dormant. | |||
| :::::: | |||
| ::::::I would therefore suggest that the periods when these accounts are active and dormant pretty much mirror each other all the way from 2016 to 2024, both on English and French Misplaced Pages, that they are pretty much always editing solely in the same topic area, and that there is very strong reason to believe that both accounts are thus being operated by the same end user. ] (]) 11:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Since Randa Kassis - as far as I know - lives in France and has made some appearances in the French media, published a book in France and so on, it makes sense that a French speaker interested in the topic of the Syrian civil war would be at least a little familiar with her (that is, if they do not have actual connections with her). ] (]) 12:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::True, but that doesn’t explain why the end user was apparently maintaining two accounts on English Misplaced Pages - one for the purpose of being a major contributor to various Kassis-related articles, and one for the purpose of being a minor contributor and complaining on various different forums when those same articles were impacted by a redirect. | |||
| ::The user has already admitted to indulging in ] behaviour , which they describe as {{tq|enjoy a little anonymous fun}}. The Slow Horses activity and the overall timeline from 2016-2024 indicates very strongly that the user was operating two registered accounts over an extended period of time. | |||
| ::And, if further proof is needed… | |||
| ::Apart from the various Kassis-related articles which both accounts have edited (plus the unrelated ]), they have also edited the article for ], making identical edits here and here under the two different accounts. | |||
| ::The user has already asked to be blocked here during a recent discussion on their talk page re: SPI, personal attacks and legal threats. They say they are {{tq|tired of the rules}} and that {{tq|If blocking me makes you happy, then by all means, crack on—I’ve no desire left to contribute. I won’t bite my tongue just to win your approval and keep engaging on a platform that’s rapidly losing its credibility}}. | |||
| ::Maybe it's time for an admin to let the user have what it seems they are looking for. ] (]) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess you're right. ] (]) 14:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for raising your concerns. I’m open to any necessary processes, including CheckUser, to help resolve this misunderstanding. I understand the importance of clarifying these doubts, and I want to affirm that my goal has always been to contribute in good faith. Additionally, I’d like to highlight that my contributions to articles about Randa Kassis were made with a neutral tone and were always supported by reliable references. 🙏 ] (]) 15:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::According to GPTzero, your response directly above was "100% probability AI generated" - but that was fairly obvious because it completely failed to address any of the actual concerns. | |||
| ::::I also note that ] has been a frequent user of AI and actually used it for their long self defence at the recent SPI, here , a post which also showed up as "100% probability AI generated". | |||
| ::::So, another similarity between the two accounts... | |||
| ::::Let's be honest here... you've used up a lot of good will with your conduct under the Hazar Sam account over the last month or so. So when another user redirected one of the articles you'd done a lot of your SPA work on you figured you'd better use the 2nd account you'd been hiding since 2016 rather than the one where you'd recently been uncivil etc. | |||
| ::::But the sockpuppetry didn't work. ] (]) 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The same user (under their Hazar Sam account) was recently at ANI on 24th Dec (here and meritless chatbot generated retaliation here ). | |||
| :::::Presumably that previous recent appearance at ANI was why the user attempted to raise their complaint about the Astana/Kassis redirect in every conceivable forum other than ANI before eventually bringing it here and running the risk of being rumbled as a sock. ] (]) 16:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Mass Removal of External Links by User:Dronebogus. == | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| I’d like to bring attention to the actions of ], who has been systematically removing entire external links sections from several hobby-related articles, including ], ], and others. While they cite ] and reliability concerns, the external links guideline (WP:EL) explicitly permits some links that may not meet reliability standards but are still useful to readers (e.g., learning resources from knowledgeable sources). Other users oppose these actions but this user is not willing to compromise. | |||
| *This user (NiveKJ13) keeps Accusing me of sockpuppeting. I am not a sockpuupeter. Look at ] for evidence. He also vandalizes my talk page too. ] 9 August 2009 9:04PM | |||
| :This matter can be explained in my and in the administrator . And FYi, this is started by GMA Fan himself. And remember the thing Mufka have kept telling you?...never call edits that you don't like a "vandalism". --{{User:NiveKJ13/sig1}} 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Here are some examples of their removals: | |||
| ::NiveKJ13, because your edits are very similar to Witchy2006's edits. Like blanking portions of ]. ] 9 August 2009 9:15PM | |||
| :::I have explained that to Mufka and it has been resolved. But what did you do?..you still continued adding the accusation in my talk page even though it has already been resolved. --{{User:NiveKJ13/sig1}} 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK Can we stop aguring and cooperate like friends. Misplaced Pages is a plae where everyone should cooperate. ] 9:23PM 9 August 2009 | |||
| ::::: I wasn't arguing. You're the one using . Showing only that you are angry or shouting. Its very unpleasant for the person you did that to even bother to cooperate with you. --{{User:NiveKJ13/sig1}} 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed the threading in this, a bit. For the record, {{checkuser|Ebhoy}} is also {{checkuser|Erickbhoy}}, who is blocked in connection with two or more SPI cases. Looks like GMA Fan has done some socking, previously, but has hopefully stopped -- as would be wise. There's a lot of unnecessary bitterness going on, here. – <small>] (])</small> 10:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, now might be a good time for NiveKJ13 to explain any relation between that account, WikiMemoryBot, and Witchy2006. – <small>] (])</small> 12:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''NOTE''': {{user|GMA Fan}} has been for ] by {{user|Mufka}}. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Frances Gaudet == | |||
| These sections are standard for hobby-related articles, and the wholesale removals appear to go against community norms. Despite discussions with other editors (most recent discussion here: ]), they have continued this behavior without consensus. | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| Can someone please have a talk with {{user|Frances Gaudet}}? He/she keeps creating multiple articles under various titles that are all basically the same text copied and pasted multiple times. ] (]) 07:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I’ve already notified the user about this discussion. Input from administrators or the broader community would be appreciated to address this recurring issue. | |||
| :It seems to me that {{user|George Pappas}} and {{user|Frances Gaudet}} are the same person (]). I ]'d the articles you mention as they are pretty much serve only to promote the subject and blocked both accounts for ]. Regards ''']]''' 08:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you, | |||
| == ] == | |||
| JD Gale <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I found one of the discussions you refer to: for interested readers—] <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And pertaining to that discussion and article, Dronebogus removed. | |||
| ::And at Origami, these were removed. | |||
| ::And at Knitting, these were removed.]] 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :On Origami, they removed links showing ] talking about and performing Origami folding despite him being one of the worlds leading theorists on Origami. On Knitting, they removed links to the trade associated for knitting yarn manufacturers which is a common link on a subject, a link to the UIllinois LibGuide that has librarian curated links to in-depth research material about knitting, and all the categories and authority control templates. They did go back and add back the categories it but the first swipe shows carelessness. Everytime I see Dronebogus at ANI, it seems to be for taking some guideline and going hard core enforcing it without any nuance or care. {{ping|Floquenbeam}} summed it up best: "]" <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 20:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have zero useful opinions on this particular issue, but since at least one person has said "per Floquenbeam", I do want to make sure it's clear that I was talking about much different behavior, a long while ago. This isn't really that. Just a clarification, not a defense of whatever is happening here. ] (]) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Understood and apologies if I made it appear you were commenting on this behavior. I was wondering where I saw DB's name before and I finally put two and two together with the previous XFD discussion and other ANI discussions. I saw your quote and thought, at least in my mind, applied to this situation and I could not state it better. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|sp}} Editing some random topic and getting into an argument is not “wandering around looking for something to be outraged about”. It’s a fundamental part of editing Misplaced Pages. I prune external links pretty regularly and without controversy. I was not wading into some obviously contentious issue looking for trouble. ] (]) 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : These should be reverted, per {{u|sp}} and especially Floquenbeam's comment. ] (]) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In '''Links to be considered''', ] lists {{tq|Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.}} Dronebogus thinks that line is and doesn't "buy that guidance". Dronebogus thinks external links need to be (whatever that means). It isn't unusual for an editor to disagree with some bit of guidance on the project, but the productive approach is to try to get consensus to modify the guidance, not to make up their own version and apply it despite objections. ] ] 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Notable means ]. What else? ] (]) 11:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This looks like a content issue that should be addressed on the talk-pages of the respective articles. If I've followed correctly, I believe the timeline is: | |||
| :*Jan 8: Dronebogus with the comment {{tq|how about none}} | |||
| :*Jan 10: JD Gale with no edit description. Dronebogus then with the edit description {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by JD Gale (talk): No rationale provided for restoring a huge link farm of seemingly WP:OWNed personal opinion}} | |||
| :*Jan 16: JD Gale on the article talk page. | |||
| :*Jan 22: JD Gale made ] referencing the Knitting and Origami pages. Dronebogus then removed the external links in those articles ( ). | |||
| :*Jan 23: Dronebogus on the External links talk page asking for clarification. Around 7 hours later, JD Gale . | |||
| :As it stands, I'm just seeing a content dispute and a difference in interpretation of EL guidelines that is appropriately migrating to the EL talk page for clarification. Is there some context I'm missing here? ] (]) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :These link removals strike me as extremely bad, in the sense that they are deliberately making an article less useful to readers as an educational resource, with apparently very little in the way of justification. This would seem in some sense to be a content dispute, but there is indeed a recurring issue where DB ends up at some noticeboard over pointlessly rude and aggressive behaviors, over the span of some years now. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Opening a thread on the external links talk page is at least a step towards wisdom, but frankly, if I am unclear on the purpose or meaning of a policy, I would not go around trying to enforce it by removing giant reams of stuff. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|JPxG}} I feel like every time this happens it’s someone criticizing me for doing the right thing a little too slowly. ] (]) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I am sorry I bulk removed the stuff on the origami and knitting pages. It was poor form in the midst of a content dispute. I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject. I personally don’t think this needed to escalate this far, especially since I received no talk page warning before ANI. It was a content dispute that got a little heated and I overstepped my reach on. I see nothing in my conduct here that would rise to the level of sanctioning when you take into account some established contributors are repeatedly allowed to walk back on grossly insulting people and generally dancing on the limits of acceptable conduct. ] (]) 07:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::"I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject." the problem here is that when you were told the official guidelines on external links like Schazjmd laid out above, you completely disregarded them and went by what you think the guidelines should be to ''you''. It's one thing if you don't like the guidelines, that's perfectly fine, but to blow them off the way you did just isn't on. Every Misplaced Pages editor (probably) has policies/guidelines they don't like, but they don't get to violate them just because they don't like them. <span>♠] ]</span>♠ 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then what is ]? Because it’s been evoked both ways in this argument, and it seems like it’s only valid if it’s against me. There are no rules on what can be an EL, except when there are, and those rules are Dronebogus cannot remove any of them. ] (]) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dronebogus, you know damn well that IAR is only applied in really rare extenuating circumstances that this obviously doesn't fall under. IAR also isn't a "get out of following policies and guidelines" card either. Someone can't e.g. change the British spelling of colour/armour/etc. to the American spelling all willy-nilly and shout IAR in their defense, because that's disruptive. (Not equating this to that, but am using this as an illustration). And the latter is a complete strawman. You were told the guidelines on external links and brushed them off. Removing irrelevant links is one thing, removing relevant informational links is another, and relevant informational links are permitted by the current EL guidelines. Now you may argue if the latter are important enough in the article to keep, that's fine, but those are debates for the individual article talk pages. <span>♠] ]</span>♠ 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I don’t “know damn well”, ''because that’s not what the ] page says''. Am I just supposed to infer this from some mass of case law that is not discussed there? In any case I am no longer doing it, I acknowledged that some of my edits were sloppy, I took it to the talk page of the policy, is there something else I need to do? I apologize for being somewhat curt but I personally think that ] isn’t entirely in the right either by taking this ''directly'' to ANI instead of discussing it on my talk page. I don’t know if they know this but “summoning” someone to ANI is generally regarded as “taking the kid gloves off” at best and ] at worst. As with most of these situations I’d like to let it drop and actually discuss the issue at ] like I was attempting to do. ] (]) 09:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::WP:IAR relates to edits directed to '''improving or maintaining''' Misplaced Pages. Removing useful ELs serves neither purpose. ] (]) 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not everyone considers them useful. I don’t agree with the maximalist school of thought that’s apparently prevalent on Wikimedia— the idea that adding is the greatest good and removing is at best a necessary evil, or that ] only applies to adding content. If the overwhelming consensus is that what I just said is, to some extent, true, then it should be an official guideline. But this is a grey area, which should be settled by discussion rather than yelling at me that I broke a deliberately vague rule. Once again, I acknowledge removing a bunch of links in the middle of a content dispute about removing a bunch of links is not good, and I wouldn’t have edit warred it back after it was inevitably reverted. But you can’t sanction me for having a different definition of “useful” than an apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of. ] (]) 11:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|n apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of}}. | |||
| ::::::::You're aware of it now. ] (]) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, ''after the fact''. ] (]) 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Generally speaking, when making similar edits across multiple articles it's a good idea to stop or slow down when someone raises an objection in order to avoid ] problems. Edits made across a large number of articles are more difficult to reverse, so editors are generally expected to be more receptive to objections and more willing to discuss them if one comes up. --] (]) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I probably should have stopped sooner. But I only made two similar edits after the objection, which is not hard to reverse. This level of escalation would have made more sense if I had just kept going and going. ] (]) 14:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I wonder what the supposed improvement is from the link to '']'', a documentary by ] on the website of the ] about the ship from the article ]. Your incorrect arguments about the links needing to be notable clearly don't apply here. | |||
| {{resolved|indef by Backslash Forwardslash ] <small>(])</small> 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| Could somebody who speaks tinfoilese please take a look at ] and his edits, deleted and not? ] (]) 07:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Similarly, under the guise of pruning a "link farm" from two to one entries, you removed an interview that ] had on ] radio from . No idea either why you e.g. from ] the link to his entry on ], a reliable source used extensively on enwiki and here presenting an aspect otherwise not touched upon in the article. It looks as if your external links mission has done more harm than good, even in those cases where no one objected so far. ] (]) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Further information. AXJ = http://www.action4justicenow.com/indexa.htm, a birther and anti-Obama website. ] (]) 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The first two would be much better used as sources. The link to ''White Lady'' would be much better used on the article about that movie. The Comicpedia one was a mistake and I’ve restored it. Keeping these arbitrary links tacked on to the page does not improve the article. Using the ''information'' in them would. I stand by these as legitimate, non-disruptive edits even if you disagree with them. ] (]) 15:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *People are nutters. I dunno. I ], but my gut says that will eventually happen. Maybe he'll get bored of[REDACTED] before he runs afoul of it. ] (]) 08:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::How does removing a link to a good source improve an article? You didn’t cite it, you just erased it. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It’s not erased, it’s in the history. But I’m salvaging some of the links right now and will try to do this in the future before deleting them. I am more than willing to learn from my mistakes; it’s just that whenever I end up at ANI I assume it’s because someone wants me removed from the project, or otherwise punished, because that’s just what ANI is used for. ] (]) 15:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| To avoid the need for another section in the near future: please don't switch now to removing information from articles because it is already in the infobox... ] (]) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Editors also can't be role accounts. His userpage seems to indicate that, so best for someone to inform him. -- ] (]) 08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This seems more like a content dispute, IMHO. ] (]) 16:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Stalking == | |||
| == User:Adillia == | |||
| ] has started to , having likeminded editors to follow the same procedure. This is at the least irritating and must surely be harrassment of an editor. ] (]) 13:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|status=interaction ban|result={{ul|Aidillia}} and {{ul|D.18th}} are hereby ] with each other, everywhere on Misplaced Pages, subject to the ]. They are also indefinitely ] in the File: namespace and are ]. For clarity: the filespace restriction is ] and does not extend to edits related to images and media in other namespaces. Violations of the first restriction may be enforced by any administrator with escalating ] and may lead to further sanctions per ]. {{pb}}This may be considered an ] close since I commented below, but these two restrictions have been separately proposed three different times throughout this ongoing incident, and there has been unanimous support each time and overall, therefore I see no way that any competent closer would not reach the same conclusion.{{pb}}-- ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 12:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :As this naming dispute has been a very contentious issue in the past, I should think that central discussion would be appropriate before altering links around. If you didn't attempt such a discussion, I don't see how you could be surprised that interested editors have responded with alarm. – <small>] (])</small> 13:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have made may edits to The BI talk page, including today!, and have been insulted for my efforts there. ie by MBM typical ] (]) 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Wheither anyone removes 'British Isles' from any articles or not, is irrelevant to me. However, If one chooses to do so? he/she should notify others first. ] (]) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where does Misplaced Pages say this and where have I removed 'British Isles' from any articles? ] (]) 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I haven't claimed that you did or didn't. I'm merely suggesting a guideline for the future. ] (]) 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Aidillia}} | |||
| This looks more like a content dispute than something for ]. ] might be a better venue, although it looks like the ] page has relevant discussion that perhaps a ] could help with. I'm not seeing this as a "stalking" issue, and it's certainly not canvassing by the link provided. It appears to be exactly the place to discuss the issues. I'm marking this as resolved, at least for this board. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| :, thanks for the advice ] (]) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then remove the resolved tag. I'm just not seeing a problem with MidnightBlueMan or any of his edits. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, I removed it. I have made many edits in the field of and Natural history. What is MBM's motive other than ]? ] (]) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on ]. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as . You know that we rely more on ] ] ] rather on official website or social media accounts as they are ], so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. ] ] 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on ]. You will just engaged in ]. I've also seen you revert on ]; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. ] (]/]) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Support''' an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at ]. Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. ] ] 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === User:D.18th === | |||
| ::::Alright, I looked at the link you provided - it was your edit. So I looked at the article history - and I don't see a single edit by MBM. Sorry, I've looked at what you provided, ... several times, and I'm just not inclined to go searching through more diffs and history. To be perfectly blunt, my perception is that you are trying to get your preferred version of this "British Isles" thing pushed through over the objections of multiple other editors. Sorry - maybe another admin. will see it differently - but I'm done here. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::? ] (]) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|D.18th}} | |||
| ::::::Since Þjóðólfr appears to be doing mass changes of geographic names in a case that his been hotly contested, offering us an example regarding the distribution of beetles is unlikely to be convincing. You should familiarize yourself with past debates before you begin tinkering on a problem that has caused great passion already. The phrase 'British Isles and Ireland' seems like a ], and you should try to find general support before you start making this change. A good place for you to begin would be in the thread at ] where you could try to present arguments that would convince the other editors. See ] for more background. ] (]) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm NOT doing mass changes of geographic names and I've alraeady contributed to the above supposed starting point. Jeez. ] (]) 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :] has my sympathy. He added a reference to an article, which previously had none, only to have it deleted by ], presumably because the reference spoke separately of "Britain" and "Ireland". ] (]) 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <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) | |||
| == Current vote fraud by ] == | |||
| <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) | |||
| ; Locus of dispute, or action in dispute | |||
| :{{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, ]. (] | ]). 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}} | |||
| === Resumption === | |||
| I've unarchived this because they're resumed edit warring with each other at ]/]. Repeating my comment from above to give it more attention: '''I propose that D.18th and Aidillia are ]'''. ] ] 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :], I think you should notify both editors of your action on ANI, especially as this discussion might have an impact on them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Done. ] ] 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Both files were created by Aidillia and I don't know why they need to do that. I uploaded a new version at <code>Study Group poster.png</code> but then I was reverted without a valid reason then Aidillia uploaded a redundant file so they'll have an ].{{pb}}Another file they keep messing up is ], I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets ], I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing ]. ] ] 08:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh again? ]? I left you a valid reason in the file! or maybe you don't want to understand it! As I already did some research, maybe it's considered as the main poster, as the main trailer is already out; (because there are no ] that say it's the main poster) that's why I reverted it back after that. But I want to create a new file instead of renaming it. You're the one who ignore my ] again and again over a small thing. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets ], I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT.''" | |||
| ::That situation is the situation that u did to me before! | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::I also meets WP:IMAGERES! But u keep reverting my edits!? What is your PROBLEM? <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you that interested in being engaged in ] over a ridiculous thing? You've been here for many years, but why are you wasting your time warring over ridiculous things? Please stop making it complicated. Just ignore it but why are you fight it until the end? I've been blocked by you twice. What's your problem? <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please also stop your behaviour, ], like what u did to someone on ]. Stop uploading for your prefered version! It's so unnecessary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 10:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''support''', but also a p-block from file space might be needed since both seem to be using it as a trophy case. ] ] 13:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support two-way IBAN''' for now. As a bystander, this situation has devolved into a prolonged ], possibly including ], with increasingly absurd interactions between both parties beyond just edit warring on filespace, including nominating each other's "creations" for deletion which seems like a retaliatory behaviour. Furthermore, I fail to understand the obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft as both parties exhibited in their contributions when neither constitutes ownership or a noteworthy achievement on Misplaced Pages. If a two-way IBAN is ineffective, this effectively constitutes ] and possibly ] hence I believe that a block should be enforced against the first party to violate the ban. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support''' and p-block from file space. I think the p-block is the more important part of this. — ] ] 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*: The problems aren't limited to file space. See ]. ] ] 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Resumption again=== | |||
| ; Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion | |||
| This appears to be a resumption of disruptive behavior, this time occurring on draftspace. I believe there is a potential case of HOUNDING by Aidillia against D.18th. Furthermore, this ownership and uncollaborative behavior, which I previously described as an "{{tq|obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft}}" is evident once again. Given this is the third instance here on this topic, could we finally have some conclusions and actions taken? Also noting that the previous discussion was auto-archived due to inactivity without official administrative actions pertaining to IBAN being logged into ]. | |||
| ] - | |||
| On Draft:Please Stop Drinking/Draft:Please Quit Drinking. | |||
| ; Description of the dispute and the main evidence | |||
| Rather obvious vote fraud at ] AFD, as outlined by reporting user at ]. Brought here for quick consensus or action per ] for ongoing vote fraud. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ] – @] created Draft:Please Stop Drinking pointing to ]. | |||
| ; Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims) | |||
| * ] – @] created Draft:Please Quit Drinking pointing to the same mainspace. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia converted their draft to a skeleton outline. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft. | |||
| * ] – D.18th reverted the changes stating "{{tq|This is the literal translation of the Korean title}}". | |||
| * ] – Aidillia posted onto D.18th's talk page asking to D.18th's to "{{tq|delete Draft:Please Stop Drinking}}" so that they could move their created draft. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia cut-paste the content (]) from their draft to D.18th's draft. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia moved D.18th's draft to ]. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia moved their draft to Draft:Please Stop Drinking. | |||
| On Draft:Typhoon Company/Draft:Typhoon Boss | |||
| ; Comments by uninvolved editors | |||
| * ] – D.18th created Draft:Typhoon Company pointing to ]. | |||
| ; Remarks by closing editor | |||
| * ] – Aidillia created Draft:Typhoon Boss with content of "{{tq|Typhoon Boss}}". | |||
| * ] – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft. | |||
| * ] – D.18th reverted Aidillia changes. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia reverted D.18th changes. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia redirect their draft to D.18th's draft. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia cut-paste the content (]) from their draft to D.18th's draft. | |||
| * ] – D.18th overwrited the cut-paste content from their draft. | |||
| * ] – Aidillia added external link with edit summary of "{{tq|Even HanCinema link also said it is Typhoon Boss}}". | |||
| * ] – Aidillia added redirect templates to their draft with edit summary of "{{tq|sopspspwpwppwpwpwpwppwpwpeppeowoow}}". | |||
| '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems like Aidillia is intentionally harassing D18 trying to antagonize them into another incident. This shows a pattern of resorting to weird tactics in order to be the “first” to create something. | |||
| Is this an "exceptional high profile debate where possible disruption may need quick attention"? It seems that it can easily be handled through a normal SPI. ] <small>(])</small> 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This discussion has been sitting on ANI for ''weeks'' with no real measures being taken. An interaction ban needs to be enacted '''ASAP''', with possibly an additional block on page creation and/or page moves if this behaviour is seen to be chronic. ] (]) 16:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's read the box under that one please. Can't be handled via normal SPI as the vote is open. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both Aidillia and D18 upload a new copy of any file I upload, for no good reason. 👎 ] (]) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yea okay that box talks about where the fraud doesn't affect the outcome. Is that a typo? Why take a report here where the vote ''isn't'' affected? Surely reports should come here where it's current fraud and the votes ''are'' affecting the outcome (regardless of whether it's high profile if there's even a definition of what high profile means), ie so we can take action to stop it. It's odd to wait for a vote to close knowing it's been unduly influenced and then do a CU. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your point? ]] 21:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Both editors site-blocked for one week''' for clear escalation and disruption on many pages. I agree that they should be two-way ] once their blocks expire, and also suggest they be ] from creating duplicates of any other users' drafts. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Good block, but also there’s a case to be made for an INDEF. Both editors are a time sink and net negative beyond the incessant sniping. ] ] 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Can I see some of the net negative editing diffs I looked through d18s contributed other than the edit warring it seemed fine mostly ]] 17:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Unlikely, both are productive editors and there’s no evidence showing this has spread further than issues with each other. Could’ve been avoided with an IBAN. ] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::IMO logging their IBANs in ] before their 1-week blocks expire is sufficient for now. I don't believe their contributions are entirely unproductive, excluding their interactions with each other. An indefinite block may be considered if the IBAN proves to be ineffective, which we can revisit at that time. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 18:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''IBAN''' OMG. If ever there was a case for an iban, this is it. — ] ] 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Yeah. I hadn't been closely following this since stumbling onto the upload war at ] (I think after actioning a speedy deletion request on the image it replaced?), but I was struck even then by how ] it was on both users' parts. Cursory skim through the above diffs hasn't done a thing to convince me otherwise. —] 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Support IBAN and indef ban of both editors from filespace to avoid continued disruption there. ] (]/]) 21:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==User talk:Juice and ye 999== | |||
| You have to also wonder who's sockpuppet the start of the AFD is - because that's no new editor... --] (]) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=TPA-b-gon applied. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Juice and ye 999}} | |||
| Can someone please revoke TPA? Thanks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] (]) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == 37.47.76.95 - personal attacks == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{atop|result=IP account blocked for a week. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|37.47.76.95}} - self-explanatory from ]. Whoever they are, they're not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll add I'm active in a few sockpuppet investigations and a few semi-controversial discussions especiallly around the California fires and Gulf of Mexico so it wouldn't shock me too much if this was a sock or LOUT because this is clearly targeted towards me in particular. Maybe a CU will be needed if this continues. ] (]) 16:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Per these edits , and , can someone please indef block ]? Note also the block history, and this past , there is little evidence that this user wants to contribute anything meaningful to wikipedia. ] (]) 19:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :Blocked indefinitely. Several previous blocks combined with those particularly harsh personal attacks certainly imply Misplaced Pages would be better without this individual. ~ <font color="#228b22">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 19:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::How does it feel to know that I have about 19 other dorment accounts and over 50 IP's I can edit from? Ouch! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::Well, that's certainly the sort of thing that will bring Misplaced Pages to its knees. It's not like all of your edits and accounts can be fixed with a single click of a button, or anything. ] (]) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] for anyone interested. --]''''']''''' 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *You'd think someone who thinks they're so clever would understand that every time they post on a new IP, they simply allow that IP to be blocked. I mean I ''understand'' most sock-users frankly lack intelligence, but it's still embarrassing to watch. ]] 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Plagiarism? == | |||
| It says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Plagiarism "If you find that an editor persists in plagiarising others' work after being notified of this guideline, report him, or her, at the administrators' noticeboard so that an administrator can respond to the issue." | |||
| {{userlinks|Mr. Accuracy Specialist}}<br> | |||
| There are some texts at the Asmahan article that are almost exact copys from the sources and very little changed from them. Here is the source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JI20Ak04.html | |||
| This week-old account has a talk page filled with warnings (mostly deleted). Some of the warnings include: | |||
| Texts from the source: "She escaped by night on horseback" "She disguised herself as a male horseman and rode all the way to the Syrian-Palestinian border." "she returned to Damascus where she paraded through the streets with her husband Hasan" "The Free French reneged on their promise of independence and a disgruntled Asmahan shifted her allegiance to the Nazis in revenge. She boarded a train and headed to Ankara, where she wanted to meet Franz von Papen, Hitler's ambassador to Turkey and master of Nazi espionage in the Middle East. British officials at the border refused to let her pass, and she was deported to Beirut" | |||
| * ] warning about using AI chatbot. | |||
| * Me warning . | |||
| Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like: | |||
| I tried to change a couple words, and rewrite some sections to try to avoid plagiarism, but they have been reverted several times by user Arab Cowboy: | |||
| *. | |||
| *. | |||
| *. | |||
| I have asked three times for ''specific details'' about an edit----but was ignored, while this editor continued their mostly error-filled editing. This may be a user with limited English, using AI. Thanks! ] (]) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=306840098&oldid=306838133 | |||
| :I would support a temp block warning him in several different languages (my gripe when dealing with users like this) if he continues after the first block an indef block would suffice <br><small>Off topic but ] is straight gold I’m gagging lol</small> ]] 18:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To explain my warning a little, I think Mr. Accuracy Specialist is using AI because of edits like ], ], ] – the links have the URL parameter {{code|?utm_source{{=}}chatgpt.com}} and the cited websites do not back up what was written. He has also made suspiciously well written, but unsourced, edits to sea snails that are likely LLMs: ], ], ]. | |||
| :I was actually debating reporting Mr. Accuracy Specialist to SPI a few days earlier because I thought he was a sockpuppet of {{IPuser|202.57.44.130}}, but I held off because I wasn't sure about it. The IP was previously reported at ] for making edits to Philippine film articles. ] mentions there is possible COI - maybe they would like to provide input here? Here's the gist of what I was going to write: | |||
| :* 202.57.44.130 makes tens of edits to articles related to ] in a short period of time, then stops at 13:35, January 18, 2025 (UTC) and has not edited again as of this moment. | |||
| :** Mr. Accuracy Specialist is created five hours later, then continues the same pattern of making dozens of edits in short bursts. | |||
| :* After a hundred minor edits (to build credibility?), Mr. Accuracy Specialist also starts to edit the same articles related to GMA Pictures. | |||
| :** | |||
| :** On ] the two accounts have made identical changes: first ], then ]. | |||
| :** On ] the two accounts have made large, partly unreferenced additions: ], then ]. | |||
| :Since January 19 there's been no overlap, which is why I'm not confident about the connection. ] (]) 20:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just noticed {{IPuser|139.135.241.10}} has also made a dozen edits to ] with edit summaries very similar to 202.57.44.130. For example, the same threats: ] vs. ]. | |||
| ::See also the , where there is lots of overlap. ] (]) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be fair, "stops editing as an IP and makes an account" isn't sockpuppetry, it's what we ideally ''want'' editors to do. And IPs are dynamic, so it's not surprising two diffferent IPs are the same user.- ] <sub>]</sub> 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::My comment is the type of ] remark that I hope contains a core of truth. Any editor who voluntarily chooses a boastful, arrogant username such as {{u|Mr. Accuracy Specialist}} ought to be held to an exceptionally high standard of conduct starting with their very first edit. ] (]) 04:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == System gaming by NandivadaHungama == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=306843722&oldid=306841694 | |||
| {{atop|1=No ECR for you. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I believe {{user2|NandivadaHungama}} is ] per ] by editing their user page 500 times and thus should have extended-confirmed rights removed.--''']'''<nowiki>|</nowiki>] 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}.--] (]) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:ThePurgatori == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=307028837&oldid=307025361 | |||
| In summary: user makes many problematic edits to many articles with no source and edit summary, continues doing so despite being warned multiple times, and refuses to respond to complaints nor engage in discussion. | |||
| He also added the exact same comment from the author in the middle of a quote, exactly as in the book: "(although she was in reality a third cousin, twice removed)" Page 37 http://books.google.com/books?id=Eca2pXOX-F8C&pg=PA37&dq=%22why+I+am+the+daughter+of%22#v=onepage&q=%22why%20I%20am%20the%20daughter%20of%22&f=false | |||
| , ] has been (and is still) unilaterally adding ] (as well as including mentions of "possible dwarf planet" in lede sentences and "p-DP" in infoboxes) to an alarmingly high number (over 300!) of trans-Neptunian object (TNO) articles, even those which are obviously too small to qualify as a dwarf planet or have never been called a possible dwarf planet in the scientific literature . For every single one of their edits, they gave no edit summary justifying their category additions. From what I've seen with ThePurgatori's edits, they either don't give a source for the "possible dwarf planet" category or they cite only , which I see as unreliable and ]-pushing for the reasons I've given ]. | |||
| I notified him twice, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AArab_Cowboy&diff=307015009&oldid=306114934 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=306841694&oldid=306840348 | |||
| Adjacent to mass-categorizing TNO articles, ThePurgatori has also been mass-adding TNOs to ] and transcluding that template to TNO articles they have mass-categorized with ]. The template includes a comment that explicitly says that "Only those TNOs whose absolute magnitudes ≤ +4.3, are not Haumeids, and have diameter ≥ 400 km should be included in this template." ThePurgatori and added numerous objects to the template such as ], which obviously not over 400 km in diameter. Furthermore, they arbitrarily changed the absolute magnitude (H) limit from +4.3 to +5.5 in with no justification given. ThePurgatori's edits to ] have since been reverted, but the template is still inappropriately transcluded to many TNO articles. | |||
| Dont know what more to do from here. --] (]) 20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Outside of mass-editing articles, ThePurgatori has been (and is still) frequently making unreferenced additions to ], ], and multiple lists of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects. | |||
| == Non neutral biased title == | |||
| * For ], ThePurgatori has (and are still doing) repeatedly added TNOs to resonances without a source---some of their additions turn out to be contradictory to established sources stated in the article (Deep Ecliptic Survey), as ] as stated in his warning on ThePurgatori's talk page. ThePurgatori never replied to Renerpho's warning and continued adding unreferenced (and incorrect) additions to ] like in . In that particular edit, ThePurgatori added ] to the article. Looking at the edit history of that particular entry, I see that from "classical" to "4:7 resonant?" (again, no edit summary and no reason given), seemingly citing Johnston's archive (which is not the Deep Ecliptic Survey source specified in the ] article). The reference to Johnston's archive in that edit links to the wrong page, but they intended to link to which makes the "4:7 resonant?" claim. However, that claim is not reliable; . Renerpho has warned ThePurgatori about this again; no response from ThePurgatori. | |||
| * For ], ThePurgatori has also made numerous unreferenced additions (now reverted). In , ThePurgatori entirely missed that point and includes unmeasured TNOs with guesstimated diameters and fabricates error bars. No edit summary and no source given. | |||
| * For lists of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects (split up by year), ThePurgatori is changing the diameter values of TNOs in each list without explanation or source for how they got these numbers. They also link their created articles in these lists. To give an example, . | |||
| I've notified ThePurgatori about my concerns about their edits on their talk page and asked them to stop their edits until they respond to my concerns. They did not respond, but following my first request. For some of their reverts, they did include an edit summary too (for example, ), but never gave any meaningful explanation to why they added that category in the first place. I asked ThePurgatori on their talk page to respond again, several more times. Also no response, and by , ThePurgatori had already moved on from removing ] from TNO articles and continued editing numerous TNO articles, keeping the ] category I was complaining about (like in ). And after I explained to them what TNOs to not categorize as "possible dwarf planets", | |||
| Hi I am requesting administrators to take a look into this article ], please read the talk page ]. A number of editors such as myself have been trying to move the title to a more neutral title "Syrian military presence in Lebanon" that is more reflective of the historical and political reality. But unfortunately the administrators who have had the final say on this article tend to be very biased by virtue of the fact that they don't look at the arguments and evidence and sources presented and always argue that there is no argument while editors such as myself have presented endless sources and proof. We just had a discussion where editors voted 8-6 in favor of moving the title name, but one administrator came and reverted the name change. I am asking for neutral administrators who have not edited or are not involved in or have not taken sides with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to take an honest and sincere look into this, because as an editor on Misplaced Pages I know that NPOV is the rule and not POV and this title is inherently POV, Please check the arguments and sources provided. | |||
| Here are the facts. | |||
| 1) The Lebanese president in 1976 requested Syrian military intervention. Unlike the majority of occupations Syria did not enter Lebanon by itself. The head of the lebanese nation requested that Syria intervenes. | |||
| 2) The ] voted in favor of sending a peace-keeping force that was to consist of mostly Syrian soldiers. Therefore Syria was given 2 mandates to intervene in Lebanon, whereas the other belligerents such as Israel was never given any official mandate. | |||
| 3) ALL non-biased sources such as PBS have termed the Syrian military intervention as a "presence". | |||
| 4) Whereas almost all sources presented from the opposing editors are all biased, for example the former Bush administration. Politicla partisans like ] and ]. | |||
| 5) A number of honest editors have correctly pointed out that Syria's mandate expired in 1982 and that after that it was a legitimate occupation, but the problem is that the article speaks of the first 6 years which has no legitimate evidence of an occupation. | |||
| I also notified ThePurgatori and asked them to comment in two talk page discussions: ] questioning the (un)reliability of the list website ThePurgatori has used to justify their dwarf planet claims, and ] discussing how the "possible dwarf planet category" should be applied. No response from ThePurgatori either. Just today (at 19:14, 23 January 2025 UTC), from ] and ], both complaining about ThePurgatori's unreferenced edits. No response, and ThePurgatori | |||
| Any suggestions or ideas to resolve this because the current title is obviously biased and contradictory of the historical events. I ask any administrator that believes in Misplaced Pages's neutrality to take a look into this.] (]) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| When I first encountered this user, I thought prodding them multiple times via talk page would get them to do something to address their problematic edits, but at this point it's become a futile waste of time. Frankly, it's very frustrating. I've been hesitant about going to WP:ANI over this since I felt that would be going too far, but it's all I can do now. | |||
| :I don't see any evidence the discussion was closed in an inappropriate manner. There seems to be evidentiary-based arguements being based which support both sides, and neither side in the discussion displayed controling a clear consensus. Based on that, the standard is to maintain the ''status quo''. Any arguements on the substance of one side or another should occur at the article talk page itself, but as far as the administrative action, I can find no fault with it. --]''''']''''' 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey ] I appreciate your input, but the point that other editors and myself are trrying to make is that the status quo is biased; what can we do to fix or resolve that?.] (]) 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I am inviting {{ping|ThePurgatori}}, the subject of this complaint, and {{ping|Renerpho|ArkHyena}} who have also been dealing with this user. ] <span style="font-size:85%">(] • ])</span> 21:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] problematic way of editing the ] page == | |||
| :Thanks for the tag, {{u|Nrco0e}}. I was reverting some of ThePurgatori's early changes to ], and although I got no reply to my message on their talk page, the next few changes they made there seemed to comply with what I told them. I then stopped checking, but I am seeing now that they just seem to ignore it in their latest edits. The list of resonant objects on that page should be handled with care, as such data becomes basically useless once you start mixing different sources. Resonances need to be confirmed computationally, and Buie is the only one who does that reliably. I'll have a look at a couple of the recent changes. It may be best to just reset that article to what it looked like a few weeks ago. Which is a great way to waste both my time, and theirs! :-( | |||
| ]. I want to continue working on this article which might mean that at some time I would find myself in technical violation of 3RR. As explained on the wikiproject physics talk page, this is absolutely not a content dispute, as I'm willing to have the other editor have his preferred POV. | |||
| :{{re|ThePurgatori}} If you read this, please start communicating now! It's great that you want to work on those articles, but if you don't interact with other users, chances are you'll continue causing a mess! ] (]) 21:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regarding my suggestion to roll back ], that already happened shortly before I wrote that comment, by {{u|ArkHyena}} (reverting 29 edits spanning about a month). ThePurgatori has since edited the article twice, although I checked that particular addition and it is not problematic, following the standard reference (Buie) we have specified. Either they got lucky, or they've noticed the complaints. ] (]) 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Anyway you can tl;dr this? ] (]/]) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::ThePurgatori continues to edit astronomy-related articles, and even though they've been warned that their edits are not constructive and against consensus, they remain unresponsive and continue to cause a mess. ] (]) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am tagging {{u|Kwamikagami}}, who has been involved in the discussion at ], and who has just removed that category from a lot of articles. -- Maybe you have some insights into how to best approach this? ] (]) 22:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::First, let's splash a scary-looking warning template on their talk page. If they still don't engage, I'd give them a warning block of a few days to really get their attention, leaving them with the ability to respond on talk pages . Once/if they engage, maybe the problems can be resolved. ] (]) 22:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I went ahead and gave them ]. ] (]) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It should be noted that there is a major ongoing discussion at ]'s talk page over how to handle candidate dwarf planets ]. ThePurgatori has been directed to participate in the discussion by Nrco0e, though they have yet to participate. Specifics aside, it was agreed to state on ] that objects included were >700 km in diameter; soon after, ThePurgatori changed the statement to say ''600'' km with little explanation. It appears that ThePurgatori is intent on imposing a standard across astronomy articles that was not agreed upon by other users, despite several attempts at communicating with them. I am not sure what measures should be taken to resolve this, but this behavior is not constructive. ]] (it/its) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :In their edits to ] from today, they've not only changed the diameters without sufficient explanation (as already pointed out), but have also changed the object count in a strange way. The article's source (a combination of and ) lists 39 objects in that category. They are saying in the article lede that there are 38. Their list includes 40. This may be an honest mistake, but I am getting tired of trying to clean up behind them. We do require some ]. ] (]) 01:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The diameters in ] have also been changed in 3 edits since 16 January, without an edit summary (similarly to the case of the 2010 list already mentioned), and I cannot follow where their numbers come from. ] (]) 01:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I really don't want to beat a dead horse, but they have been blocked on the Spanish Misplaced Pages for sockpuppetry. Not sure how relevant that is for us. ] (]) 01:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have just reverted 3 edits by ThePurgatori from 24 January 2025, unexplained change of a diameter without edit summary. ] (]) 09:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === My evolution === | |||
| The core of the issue is that because the editor in question turns out not to know much about the subject (beyond some very superficial knowledge), the collaboration that I had in mind (he edits and I offer suggestions for minor improvements, which is reasonable given that he prefers a different verion than me, so he should be doing most of the editing work) will degenerate into long discussions about even the smallest edits, which is worse than me editing the (for me) more difficult verion all by myself. | |||
| Since 10/01/2024, i have been getting ideas to add the Category:Possible dwarf planets to a high number of TNOs, even those like ] whose diameters are below 300 km, i accidentally do it, I'm very sorry. | |||
| It may also be the case that this is a hoax editor who is an expert, but who wants to prove that you can fool wiki editors and get nonsense editited in wiki articles that will stick for a long time. ] (]) 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Adding the ones in Michael E. Brown list is now getting so much. | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] was nominated for deletion on July 31; when it was closed prematurely by ] on July 31st, it was taken to ] (see ]). There was no consensus to overturn at DRV; on August 8th, the closing admin at DRV, ], considered the other two possibilities (endorse or relist), concluding that consensus supported relisting rather than endorse. | |||
| I also have done additional unreferenced words into ], and ]: | |||
| King of Hearts and the AFD, but it was mere hours later by ]. When this was brought to his attention on his takl page, Clemens claimed that he didn't realize that he was closing a relisting that resulted from a DRV consensus to do so. But he refused to correct the error by reopening the AFD, and when pushed on the point, claimed that ] supports his action. Clearly not: both myself and ] have made clear that Clemens' "early closure was highly inappropriate" and that the AFD "should not have been closed and should have run the 7 days" (), and Clemens himself has admitted that he "made an oversight in the process." That takes SNOW off the table, since it underlines that "f an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." | |||
| In resonant trans-Neptunian object, i accidentally have make edits like putting ] into the resonance, which is unreferenced, the DES has secured that this objects orbit is not resonant. | |||
| What's more, Clemens has admitted to a COI: he concedes that the early close was inappropriate, and that he closed the AFD early with a keep that reflects his personal opinion as to the notability question at issue. This is hard to square with ]' warning against admins using their position to advance the side of a debate they support. He was not a "reasonably neutral party," in the argot of that policy, reviewing the debate impartially, but a participant. In effect, he attempted to unilaterally transform the DRV result from relist to overturn, using his position as an admin to close a debate as keep because he was persuaded that the keep position was correct. | |||
| In List of possible dwarf planets, i accidentally have make edits without reference that is, adding ] to the main table of the likeliest dwarf planets topic, and adding some TNOs that are guesstimates by Michael E. Brown to the table which is only for TNOs with diameters published in scientific literature. | |||
| As I said above, Clemens refused to accept DRV's relist mandate, so I have enforced that mandate by manually renominating the article. The immediate problem has therefore been dealt with, but we're still left with Clemens' acknowledgment of error but refusal to correct it. (To be clear, it is the refusal to correct an error brought to his attention that I wish to focus attention on, not his mistake in closing the AFD prematurely.) I wasn't sure where to bring this, but KofH suggested ANI, and ] says the same. We are told that ]: what can be done?<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Feel free to look at and filter Simon Dodd's shrill accusations through a large grain of salt. He has repeatedly made accusations of bad faith, and failed to articulate any argument that the outcome was wrong--even when informed that a "reasonable objection" required objection to the outcome, rather than the process. My transparency in that process has been twisted and used against me. My detailed rationale for closing has been falsely construed as a COI. I think an appropriate admonishment for Dodd is in order, for treating Misplaced Pages as a ] and ]. | |||
| :As far as the deletion discussion itself goes, more reliable sources publish articles aboiut Taitz as a person every day, such as . ] (]) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry, i will start making referenced edits and give an edit summary, please give me chances, don't sanction me ] (]) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ]'s ownership of article ] == | |||
| :Hello, {{u|ThePurgatori}}! | |||
| Originally , but User Wildhartlivie has . Apologies if this is in the wrong place. | |||
| :Thank you for responding. The most important thing is that you continue to communicate with other users. As long as you do that, chances are we will get along well, and your contributions become helpful (rather than having to be reverted). | |||
| :It is good to see that you recognize the mistakes you have made. If you need guidance about how to do things, feel free to ask (you can just ] me if you want, or ask on talk pages; just stay responsive). I suggest that you put your work on ] aside for the moment, and discuss the ideas you have about it on its talk page. | |||
| :If you want to return to ] and start adding objects '''based on the Buie reference''', you are welcome. ] (]) 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editor won't stop == | |||
| Article ] | |||
| {{User2|Cbls1911}} has made numerous disruptive edits to US political pages. I have reverted a few but there are too many. Could someone please look into their contributions? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Sorry. I forgot to sign it. Was typing in a rush. ] ] 23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Who is involved?==== | |||
| ::Hello, ]. When you post a complaint on a noticeboard, you have to provide diffs/edits that show examples of what the problem is. If editors have to go hunting to find out what you are referring to, it's unlikely that this post will get a response. You have to present evidence to support your claim that there is disruptive editing going on. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Cbls1911}} appears to be changing ordinal indicators to incorrect forms, such as ], even after ]. Not blocking yet, but I likely will if they continue with this. ] (] | ]) 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have reviewed about a dozen of their recent edits. I agree that the editor appears to be unfamilar with the quirky aspects of ordinal numbers in English. Also, I noticed that they changed the well-known (in the US) campaign name "Obama for America" to "Obama for President", which was not the name that campaign gave itself, but is certainly plausible. I think the editor is acting in good faith but may lack the knowledge and the language skills to edit productively in the area of US politics. So, at the very least, I think that Cbls1911 should be advised to proceed more cautiously. ] (]) 03:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed, it seems to be good faith editing and the added wikilinks seem helpful. Based on , possibly a native Chinese speaker, which would explain the unfamiliarity with ordinals. ] (]) 03:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 179.96.218.28 == | |||
| Just a list of the users involved. For example: | |||
| {{userlinks|179.96.218.28}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Jolly Holiday|prev|1271417023|1}}, {{diff|Eleanor Parker|prev|1270955998|2}}, {{diff|Warner Bros. Family Entertainment|prev|1270694117|3}}, {{diff|List of Looney Tunes feature films|prev|1270436599|4}}, {{diff|List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters|prev|1269675628|5}}. ] (]) 04:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| :Blocked for a week. This is more tricky than the /64 below because this IP has not been active for long and has not previously been blocked. The two cases seem very similar and I suspect I have seen others with the same style. Is there an LTA with this approach? ] (]) 09:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| == Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:6C60:39F0:B0D0:0:0:0:0/64 == | |||
| ====What is the dispute?==== | |||
| {{userlinks|2600:6C60:39F0:B0D0:0:0:0:0/64}} - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings and behaviour continued after a 72h block on January 19. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|My Peoples|prev|1271323067|1}}, {{diff|List of American theatrical animated feature films (2020–present)|prev|1271330577|2}}, {{diff|List of animated feature films of 2028|prev|1271146570|3}}, {{diff|List of American films of 2027|prev|1271103363|4}}. ] (]) 04:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Wildhartlivie claiming ownership of article ], as evidenced by frequent reversions to his own version of the article (6 reverts to his own version in the last 6 days alone:) | |||
| :Blocked for three months. ] (]) 09:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ]/] violations and ] behavior by ] == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306923038&oldid=306915019 | |||
| I was holding off on filing some type of report until they decided to try to force their changes again on any of the articles, but their recent comment on their talk page is definitely casting ] on {{U|Geraldo Perez}}, accusing him of editing logged out, as seen , which was the final straw for me. They already have a plethora of warnings on their talk page for a few different things, and they've only been here since Tuesday and have already accrued that many warnings in their 59 edits, as of writing this. They've made a personal attack against Geraldo . Granted, it's not the worst one in the world, but it's still a personal attack nonetheless. They have edit warred across multiple articles, as seen , , , , , , , , , and . At this point, a block or some other kind of sanction definitely seems appropriate, in my opinion. ''']''' • 09:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306346351&oldid=306345023 | |||
| : That would be {{User|ScottSullivanTV}}. ] (]) 16:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Both original editor & sock have bee indeffed. ] (]) 16:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306332470&oldid=306327208 | |||
| == Disruptive only editor == | |||
| Shashank Yedhuru has been to not add or change content, without citing a reliable source but ignores warnings, does not respond to warnings and continues to vandalize pages like ] by changing boxoffice figures that are not backed by the sources. Since the third warning, Shashank Yedhuru made these disruptive edits again , and this . I did not think any more warnings is going to make any difference so brought it here to ANI. ] (]) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Dillinger&diff=306222634&oldid=306200431 | |||
| :I mean technically the citations in place don't support the status quo text either since this rather questionable source says 1800 crore, not 1830. ] (]) 13:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Dillinger&diff=305995100&oldid=305992902 | |||
| ::Good catch. I fixed that just now but not before when the disruptive editor after this ANI report. ] (]) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd suggest trying not to ] a newbie too much. They're not being particularly communicative yet but they may not even know about their user talk page considering how few edits they have. {{ping|Shashank Yedhuru}} I'll try a ping to get your attention. We do require changes be accompanied by reliable sources. Can you please advise if you have a source for your revised figures? ] (]) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::After this message, the 2 month old newbie Shashank Yedhuru made yet another revert back to and now crossed edit warring. I am very sure that Shashank Yedhuru got your ping and the ones before and is ignoring it. ] (]) 15:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| and inappropriate use of comments within the article to discourage editors from interfering with his proposed version of the page], without any consensus being established or even discussed on the article's talk page. Using unhelpful incivil language to new editors when his hidden comment instructions are not complied with - (). | |||
| Just a heads up... this user has been warned several times against engaging personal attacks, (see talk page) and has been previously blocked, (see block log) but it seems like they continue: ] | |||
| Also incivility towards other editors when he has been cautioned on the above matters | |||
| User has only 346 edits but has already accumulated several warnings & a block due to personal attacks, so I'm not sure if this is an indication that this person just can't play nice or what. ] (]) 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====What would you like to change about this?==== | |||
| Offer education to user Wildhartlivie regarding ], inappropriate use of hidden comments within the article to maintain his proposed version of the article rather than discussion on the talk page, and reminder of ] | |||
Latest revision as of 16:26, 24 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 | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 |
| 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 | 1177 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
User:Jaozinhoanaozinho and persistant WP:SYNTH, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:GNG-failing articles
This section has been stale for a few days and was at the top of ANI (i.e. the oldest un-archived post) and about to be automatically archived without action. I find consensus for an indefinite (not infinite, you may appeal your restriction at WP:AN if you can create some articles through AfC that demonstrate a better understanding of the policies) ban from creating articles in main space against User:Jaozinhoanaozinho. They may only create articles using the AfC process. This editing restriction will be logged at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Misplaced Pages community. MolecularPilot 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Jaozinhoanaozinho has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH seems to be lacking substantially.
- Danish expedition to North America was deleted for WP:PROFRINGE
- Da Serra–American conflict on WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH grounds
- They've been warned about creating hoax articles and continued doing so.
- Warned for copyright issues which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in Potato Revolt)
- Plenty of articles containing only one source Siege of Campar, Battle of Cape Coast (1562), Battle of Lucanzo (1590), Portudal–Joal Massacre, Battle of the Gambia River (1570), Battle of Mugenga
Most recently there's Battle of Naband, which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted.
Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. I tried bringing this up with them but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to WP:WIKIHOUND someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a WP:PROFRINGE article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I checked this Battle of Naband which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? scope_creep 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
- 1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
- 2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
- 3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
- 4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
- 5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
- 6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
- 7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
- Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts". Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.
- I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.
- Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails WP:GNG doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass WP:GNG and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".
- I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have WP:SYNTH issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass WP:GNG before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that is in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the original research policy. I propose and support a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating WP:OR, they gain that necessary understanding/competence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- SUPPORT ban from article creation. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. scope_creep 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support article creation ban. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
| WP:SOCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lucanzo (1590). There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. scope_creep 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. scope_creep 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. scope_creep 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This is editor is still creating dog poor articles Cult Member. This is the second in days thats been speedied. scope_creep 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Me (DragonofBatley)
It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save @KJP1: the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notifying other editors from the wider discussions @PamD:, @Noswall59:, @Rupples:, @Crouch, Swale:, @KeithD:, @SchroCat:, @Tryptofish:, @Cremastra: and @Voice of Clam:. If I missed anyone else sorry DragonofBatley (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also this discussion: Special:PermanentLink/1269282704#Dragon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. I'm glad to see that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
- I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. WP:JAN25 is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, then we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
- I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to draft articles in userspace and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
- Happy editing, Cremastra (u — c) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as User:DragonofBatley/Interesting topics list. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are good points.
- However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI-like thing may be in order. WP:Failed verification cleanup project, anyone? Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add DragonofBatley (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC DragonofBatley (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- DragonofBatley has agreed to a voluntary editing restriction to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will DragonofBatley (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for All Saints Church, Wellington. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see any new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) KJP1 has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you All Saints Church, Wellington. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). KJP1 provided a possible routemap for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they understand source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements and that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a great point, you're right, @SchroCat. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I responded to @Voorts earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with WP:Geoland WP:Notability and WP:Sourcing. Also conflict edit was not directed at @SchroCat, there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements and that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they understand source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). KJP1 provided a possible routemap for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's All Saints Church, Wellington was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from Listed buildings in Wellington, Shropshire and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
- And Dragon's version as submitted to AfC also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. PamD 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The issues are Verifiability and source integrity; Notability; and the suggestion of Sockpuppetry while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.
Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, Talk:All Saints Church, Wellington, which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises Competency issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.
That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. KJP1 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. Rupples (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on spectrum quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on deaf ears. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ignoring feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in Austism, Aspergers and cognitive disability. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. Rupples (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley, the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate that, I am just trying to understand not with yourself @Rupples or @Voorts. You two have been very patient and understanding. I was more trying to engage a reply with @Schazjmd and @SchroCat's earlier remarks above. But there seems to be an issue with building reply after reply so I am hoping now they can see the section around here and on my user page. I do not like to announce disabilites but I want to put them forward to hopefully engage some understanding that some of the edits or replies I have made are not out of spite or trolling. Just sometimes it can be hard and I try to open up where appropriate. Now is the best time as I am getting a lot of things to read and feel Voorts solution was enough to agree to. Also I am not looking to fall out with editors or make a war and peace. Just asking for some understanding aside from addressing other issues too. That is all. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley, the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. Rupples (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in Austism, Aspergers and cognitive disability. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on spectrum quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on deaf ears. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ignoring feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I have been tagged above and intend to write a response. This thread was started at night where I live and I am travelling today and tomorrow for work, so have had very little time to consider a response. Do not feel obliged to keep this open for me - my thoughts are largely present at KPJ1's talkpage discussion; I will probably add concerns around understanding what a reliable source is in addition to the WP:V and WP:N concerns already raised. If this discussion is still open tomorrow evening, I will try to find the time to respond properly. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC).
- As stated above, my thoughts are present at KJP1’s talk page. In sum, I have seen three discernible issues: (1) content quality issues; (2) civility and general conduct; and (3) potential sock-puppetry. I will leave out (3) as others seem content to discount that and I note he has repeatedly denied evading a ban.
- There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done.
- Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above.
- For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, this needs to be a final warning in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -Noswall59 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
- Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(I wasn't pinged here, but I had been at User talk:DragonofBatley.) DragonofBatley has been at this noticeboard before, in a section they started in May 2023, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked. PamD stated there that they became aware of DragonofBatley's edits in 2021 and had since been checking and fixing them and trying to advise DragonofBatley. It emerged that others had been trying to advise and assist them, in particular Crouch, Swale. There was further discussion at their talk page (including overly verbose advice from me, I was trying to be clear) and the editor mulling whether to leave. (their talk page in July 2023). I gather that they did not leave, but that their editing has continued to be poor and the number of editors noticing this, trying to help, and discussing the problem has increased further. It pains me to say so, but I think at this point WP:CIR has to be seriously considered. DragonofBatley's editing presents a number of problems that are taking up a lot of editorial time to fix resulting damage to the encyclopaedia. (Points that follow in descending order of importance to me.)
- Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: 'Woods Bank is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with Dragon's work on it: he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here.
- Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content here calling it "irrelevant". At User talk:KJP1, PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article St Peter and St Paul Church, Caistor, as he left it, cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, All Saints Church, Wellington, the entire Architecture section was added by other(s). However, their church articles always contain something like
The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings.
sourced to achurchnearyou.com, often as a separate "Present day" section. DragonofBatley's version of All Saints' Church, Batley (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose:All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs.
(And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing St Augustine of Canterbury, Rugeley and St Augustine's Church, Rugeley, both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.) - Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as here, was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.)
- Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles.
There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note Liz has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that Woods Bank instance (at the end of this edit, which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. Cremastra (u — c) 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to point to WP:Zeroth law of Misplaced Pages: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).
- I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at User_talk:KJP1#Dragon and Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity, and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked.
- I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.
- Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for Chew Stoke, which is also the example of a lead in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.
- Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - removing a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and taking an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.
- The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, All Saints Church, Wellington (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).
- It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.
- Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. PamD 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work
I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've got some experience of CCI investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the 400-odd articles that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am an interested editor. Cremastra (u — c) 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. PamD 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/WP:ROPE in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
- To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @PamD has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the disability act. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? PamD 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? PamD 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the disability act. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @PamD has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
- In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/WP:ROPE in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. PamD 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am an interested editor. Cremastra (u — c) 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
voorts - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. Sound of evil laughter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- How's this draft proposal: DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace, converting redirects to articles, or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.
- Having seen Dragon's work on Holme Lacy yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.
- And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. PamD 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: Adding an infobox? Adding a few words about local authority area? Adding a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. PamD 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to Trafford, never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. PamD 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question PamD. To clarify, I meant any expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing anywhere on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " PamD 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, looks good. @KJP1 what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? Cremastra (u — c) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cremastra - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hold on. This goes much further than @Voorts wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? Rupples (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at Trafford. I've lost patience. PamD 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
- No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
- No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
- No editing in mainspace.
- PamD 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
- In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at Trafford. I've lost patience. PamD 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, looks good. @KJP1 what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? Cremastra (u — c) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " PamD 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question PamD. To clarify, I meant any expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing anywhere on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to Trafford, never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. PamD 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: Adding an infobox? Adding a few words about local authority area? Adding a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. PamD 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):
- Option A: DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
- Option B: DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.
- Option C: DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.
- The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but would personally favour Option B. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into Trafford, a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1: I made some changes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- p.s. Trafford this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? Rupples (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1 and @Rupples: option C amended below. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1: I made some changes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? PamD 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but would personally favour Option B. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into Trafford, a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s)
| Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus. |
|---|
|
DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):
The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Uninvolved editors
Involved editors
|
Discussion
- I think I would be happier if:
- there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400).
- I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "
This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs).
" This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB prove to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). PamD 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1 and Cremastra: Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.| – Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, before posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be.
- Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.
- I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community consensus to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.
- I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY also apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the intermittent explosive disorder. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance). – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Est. 2021 He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. PamD 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the intermittent explosive disorder. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance). – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY also apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1, I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too Sensory overload for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but WP:CONSENSUS. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case.
- The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with structure while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe structure to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I encouraged KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in.
- I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time?
- They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them.
- Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors.
- TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Blue-Sonnet
list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed
there's User:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB. Cremastra (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- @Cremastra Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @DragonofBatley - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blue-Sonnet - That would be really helpful, particularly your perspective on how best to help User:DragonofBatley with the reviewing task. As we've not been able to bottom-out the restriction wording yet, I'm going to take Voorts' advice and get DragonofBatley going on some reviewing. My intended approach was to suggest that they take, say fifteen articles to start: five churches, five places , five railway stations. (these cover about 95% of all of the articles created). Mark these on the table as "DoB Review". Then, have a careful re-read of the editing advice that Cremastra/PamD and others have put on his Talkpage. Then, thinking about what we are reviewing for:
- Sources - do they really VERIFY the content, or are they just a mention of the name, sometimes not the right name?
- Sources - do they add up to "Significant coverage in Reliable Sources", so that the article really is NOTABLE? Here, significant is very important, three quick mentions of a place don't add up to significant coverage.
- Sources - if they don't, what other options are there? Here, it would be really good for DragonofBatley to look at the suggested actions other editors have made in the table; REVISE (with new sources)/MERGE/RE-DIRECT/send to AfD.
- Sources - if they do, are any other revisions/clean-ups required?
- make what they think are suitable changes, record them on the Table, and pick up another. And take them SLOWLY! When 15 are done, flag it on the Table Talkpage and we can have a look. I'll post this on the article Talkpage and we can see if it works for DragonofBatley. I'm fine, of course, with amendments /alternatives to this if he, you or others think there's a better way forward. KJP1 (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds good. In the interest of keeping this discussion moving towards a consensus, I'd like to check the current temperature of opinion. It sounds to me like there has been a favorable reaction to having a resolution that emphasizes structure. But before I propose anything, do any editors still prefer to have minimal restrictions? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with a "structure" for reviewing Dragon's articles and Dragon's involvement. Their 'own' articles are where it seems the vast majority of problematic editing lies. Oppose mainspace editing restriction because I'm not satisfied a strong enough case has been made. To be clear, I'm not "acting more out of a feeling". Of course, should Dragon agree to a mainspace editing restriction that would change things. Rupples (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've already had my say indicating 'absolutely nothing but article fixing' (there is plenty of evidence around their inability to source properly - pick any off the list they've started and have a look), and would still strongly prefer that was the starting point until, say, DoB have worked on fifteen articles they started to raise them to an acceptable level (per KJP's comment just above). That should give a very rough initial indication whether there is sufficient willpower, competence and desire to continue editing at the required level. The restriction could be loosened after that to allow some other steps (eg, allowed to create two or three articles at AfD if they wish - on the understanding KJP or Cremastra (or other acceptable parties) review those articles prior to them being moved to mainspace). - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd favour a restriction which means they will focus entirely on upgrading existing poor articles, and so stop editing not only mainspace but categories, templates, portals, etc. If we only say "no mainspace editing" I can imagine a flurry of creation of unnecessary categories, navboxes, or something else no-one thought to exclude. Perhaps allow talk page access (both article and user) so that if they see something which really needs correcting they can make a post suggesting it or alert a relevant editor. PamD 08:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds good. In the interest of keeping this discussion moving towards a consensus, I'd like to check the current temperature of opinion. It sounds to me like there has been a favorable reaction to having a resolution that emphasizes structure. But before I propose anything, do any editors still prefer to have minimal restrictions? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blue-Sonnet - That would be really helpful, particularly your perspective on how best to help User:DragonofBatley with the reviewing task. As we've not been able to bottom-out the restriction wording yet, I'm going to take Voorts' advice and get DragonofBatley going on some reviewing. My intended approach was to suggest that they take, say fifteen articles to start: five churches, five places , five railway stations. (these cover about 95% of all of the articles created). Mark these on the table as "DoB Review". Then, have a careful re-read of the editing advice that Cremastra/PamD and others have put on his Talkpage. Then, thinking about what we are reviewing for:
- It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Cremastra Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @DragonofBatley - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Blue-Sonnet
- It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I encouraged KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too Sensory overload for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles
Citation bot keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on User talk:Citation bot#Incorrect reference dates, however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.
Diffs:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legend of 14 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. EF 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. EF 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. EF 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can add this to the page in question – {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} – or you can add this to a specific citation – {{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}} – to keep the bot away. See -- Stopping the bot from editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that Citation bot did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on Ludlow Massacre, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot is not a user script, but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
- "All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
- -WP:Bot policy Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the person who is using the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of these seem to have been invoked by Abductive, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee (Personal attack removed). Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee (Personal attack removed). Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493
- Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
- These edits were suggested by the following user:
- Legend of 14 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found another bad date in another article:
- Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found another bad date in another article:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)
- Suggested by user:
- Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates Legend of 14 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Citation bot is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it is not necessarily an error. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is still about Citation bot. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it is not necessarily an error. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Citation bot is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by User:Spinixster. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found another bad date in another article:
You have given the operators less than one day to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? Legend of 14 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can see here the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- "All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
- -WP:Bot policy
- WP:Citing sources is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be best if the bad source was removed, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you quote the part of WP:RS which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. this diff? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be best if the bad source was removed, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about User:Citation bot, not User:Abductive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about your use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOTACC specifically says
The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot
. EF 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.
I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- 5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
- As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) moved down from the middle of the above comment (original diff). – 2804:F1...CF:5599 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right?? Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) moved down from the middle of the above comment (original diff). – 2804:F1...CF:5599 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsupervised bot and script use has damaged thousands of articles. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix 2022 deaths in the United States (July–December).... XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- We're into the second batch of ReferenceExpander edits to check and clean up. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about User:Citation bot, not User:Abductive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to Whoop whoop pull up two weeks ago (read here) about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed me to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have continued to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at User talk:Whoop whoop pull up § Checking IABot runs. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. Both should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here neither. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOTP is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.
- Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
- WP:BOTACC says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
- BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of WP:ROLE. Now, ROLE does have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple managers", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're developed and maintained by a team of people (rather than ones that can be used by multiple people).
- Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to 50,000 pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the only people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they were, in fact, approved implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
- WP:BOTCOMM seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
- WP:BOTREQUIRE says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
- WP:BOTCONFIG provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
- Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
- WP:BOTMULTIOP says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved despite the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).
- Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
- Whoop whoop pull up 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.
- "Both should take reponsibility"
- -Phil Bridger at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? Whoop whoop pull up 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.
- Policy is very clear, don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or, as the same page quoted above puts it:
Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.
XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot has not been
approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking
. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at User:Citation bot § Bot approval. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. Folly Mox (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? Whoop whoop pull up 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- ☝🏽It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against Abductive or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion somewhere specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping AManWithNoPlan, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots and checking the results. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, Folly Mox (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots and checking the results. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- ☝🏽It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against Abductive or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion somewhere specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping AManWithNoPlan, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots"
Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. CNC (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anything left here to discuss? Liz 03:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says
"datePublished":"2023-02-25T18:46:42+00:00",. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Not a news article.
- 2. Intention is irrelevant. These edits are disruptive regardless.
- 3. Maybe program it to not add dates to modified works. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're claiming it's disruptive without explaining why you think that. You're going to need to actually explain your reasoning if you want people to agree with you. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says
- The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools
- PEPSI697 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I believe this editor has a history of assuming bad faith towards other editors and has been misusing tools designed to revert vandalism; their judgement has repeatedly been clouded by personal vendettas and feelings, which in my opinion is not appropriate for an editor to have, especially one with rollback rights.
My history with this editor started on December 24 2024, when I left him (and another editor) a message for edit warring - he was getting close to three reverts, the other editor appeared to not be vandalizing the article (they were putting a formula in the lead, it was a chemistry article) so I simply encouraged them to talk it out - I did not know at that point that the other editor was a LTA. I did not intend this message to be bad faith either, shortly after I sent that message another person made a discussion on the talk page about the addition of the formula in the lead. Pepsi responded to and then removed the warning from his talk page, absolutely fine. Then, he leaves me this message, saying I did something to make him angry and that he expected an apology from me. I was really confused, it's bit weird and out of nowhere to demand an apology from someone, and I didn't understand what exactly was the issue, the warning of edit warring was not left in bad faith but an honest attempt to get two editors to discuss and reach a consensus. This was the first time I became aware of his assumption of bad faith and his problem with anger; nonetheless, I don't want drama so I wish him merry Christmas, he wishes me, everything is fine.
Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is hounding my edits. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor (Augmented Seventh): 1, 2, 3. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15.
I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi replaced my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential talk page guideline violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to seek clarification as to why they did this on their talk page. In their response to me, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me this message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see this edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me this message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. This edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me.
I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - here they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when he has gotten the same message twice for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of reverting edits without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. jolielover♥talk 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and assume good faith, you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. jolielover♥talk 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. Here, for example, they say:
Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please.
. You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. C F A 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. (1, 2, 3, 4 5, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). jolielover♥talk 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing
no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism
is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing
- In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the Teahouse (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments demanding that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. jolielover♥talk 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. C F A 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CFA: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.
- @Jolielover: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are obvious vandalism.
- Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway,
You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents
- right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you will stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you might stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. jolielover♥talk 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @PEPSI697: A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page here, here and here. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at WP:YOUNG and WP:REALWORLD because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on your user talk page that you get
stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it
when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been previously been warned about. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if yousometimes don't understand what some words mean
, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to WP:AIV. jolielover♥talk 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to WP:AIV. jolielover♥talk 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway,
- @CFA: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.
- About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the Teahouse (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future
- I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
- 1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content.
- 2: I see that other contributors on Misplaced Pages leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one.
- 3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly?
- Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool.
- 2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection.
- 3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. jolielover♥talk 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I accept your apology. jolielover♥talk 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Response and apology from PEPSI697
The first thing I want to do is apologise and then address the actions. It was not my intention to make anyone feel victimised or attacked. I want a good relationship with all the contributors on Misplaced Pages and to learn from them if I can. I realise that I am a little out of my depth with RC patrolling and so I'm going to take a break to better educate myself on vandalism or policy violation. I wonder if the community has any suggestions on how I can contribute in another way to Misplaced Pages that will not cause me these kinds of problems. Misplaced Pages is a big thing in my life and gives me a sense of achievement and I really want this to continue. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the WP:PRIMER or looking at the task center? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion.
- Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. NewBorders (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is guidance on how to use the
{{Talk header}}found on its documentation page at Template:Talk header#Should this be added to every talk page? and also at WP:TALKLEAD. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in WP:CONTRIBUTE and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like WP:GUILD, WP:DEORPHAN, WP:HELPWP, WP:URA, WP:RANPP for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at WP:RAILWAY or WP:STATIONS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with Bell railway station, Melbourne, but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get Preston railway station, Melbourne article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is guidance on how to use the
- Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps an administrator could close this discussion and all its related sub-discussions now that the OP and PEPSI697 seem to have amicably resolved their issue. Maybe all that's needed here is a firm warning to PEPSI697 to try to be careful in the future, and perhaps some encouragement to try not to over use these tools if doing so risks placing them in high-stress situations where they might lose their cool, with a reminder that the community might be less understanding the next time around if they end up back at ANI for doing something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good idea there. I agree that me, Jolielover and the others involved resolved this issue. I absolutely agree with this idea to give a firm warning on my talk page. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you
absolutely agree with
isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- Ok, sorry. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you
Non-neutral paid editor
@EMsmile is heavily editing Solar_radiation_modification in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
- Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
- Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
- - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
- Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
- An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably WP:NOTHERE. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- done Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly WP:GF reasons for them.
- By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as "has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world" and "The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality" + "The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"? Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate WP:NOTNEWS and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a very strong statement cited to...an obscure book, seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
- Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally WP:RECENT, and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. If that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, then it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
- Do you really think phrases like "China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments." are consistent with WP:NPOV? Really? Maybe cutting all of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
- That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently an internal publication of the Central Bank of Hungary. It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.
- In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably WP:NOTHERE" seems downright Kafkaesque. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns here? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROMOTIONAL manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that WP:PAID is supposed to prevent. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like Climate change, you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't bad by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply not good enough or relevant enough for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.
- Given this context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not obligated to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns here? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROMOTIONAL manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that WP:PAID is supposed to prevent. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @EMsmile's paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @Andrewjlockley provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
- My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. TERSEYES (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding: Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 TERSEYES (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- An editor with a declared COI should never be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the
strongly discouraged
wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Aquillion So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this (Redacted)?
- Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that if Earth System Governance is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering is not even seen anywhere on their front page - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as Research Framework. The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban)
- that would be wrong. See WP:SELFCITE; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we want editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS Having a perspective on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. WP:PAID editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then WP:COI needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.
- It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah WP:PAID editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that every edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it strictly barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's not the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change
strongly discouraged
toprohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism)
. I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though. - Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be manually saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that
editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests
- but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I need to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to this case, rather than a general statement. - Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's not the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change
- If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah WP:PAID editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that every edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it strictly barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this
Uh, guys? Does WP:OUTING mean nothing to you? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- @The Bushranger - I think that sanction should be swiftly applied. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. TiggerJay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: @InformationToKnowledge:, do not attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with anyone's real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. Liz 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the principles of privacy still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. TiggerJay (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could we get an edit to WP:OUTTING for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. Liz 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: @InformationToKnowledge:, do not attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with anyone's real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger - I think that sanction should be swiftly applied. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. TiggerJay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG back to Andrewjlockley
- I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. However, that does not change the fact she has been one of a literal handful of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in WikiProject: Climate change over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.
- With that in mind, I would like to say I have great difficulty assuming WP:GF here - not when the OP editor (Redacted), which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective and when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.
- I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of Chapter 16 of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
- P.S. This is really not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:BOOMERANG... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
- All of this is pertinent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that EMSmile has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that Andrewjlockley is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. WP:OUTING concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
- The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If InformationToKnowledge is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be they both should be though.
- Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. TiggerJay (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please reread WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS. The suggestion that being a published academic on a subject constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of WP:EXTERNALREL, which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- as per (Redacted) is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
- Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
- If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for WP:COI that arises as a result.
- With regards to SRM has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the version of 15 May 2024). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
- AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for more SRM research in their day job (Redacted). Also, User:Thisredrock explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be against doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
- I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by User:Thisredrock on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
- Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery orDARVO, but I'll respond anyway.
- I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
- Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wish to clarify the relationship between the Earth System Governance project (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the campaign for a 'Non-use Agreement' (NUA) on solar radiation modification (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
- Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was the founder of ESG and its first chair, for ten years, and is the editor in chief of its journall. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is a member of ESG's 11-member leadership board , one of five authors of its current implementation plan , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of ESG's series of short books. By quick count, of the other 14 authors on the NUA's founding paper, one other is on the governing board, at least eight are lead faculty, at least two are senior research fellows, and one is among the journal's six editors.
- In the other direction, of ESG's 11-member governing board, eight have signed the NUA sign-on statement.
- The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. TERSEYES (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @TERSEYES, would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? TiggerJay (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
- For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an oversight on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? jp×g🗯️ 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- ... gonna ask in talk page of WP:OUTTING if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Bushranger, I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. Liz 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: the diff of them placing it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is here - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - The Bushranger One ping only 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named User:Johnjacobjingleheimer, then it constitutes WP:OUTING (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. jp×g🗯️ 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at WP:OUTTING think it would be easier to avoid.
- opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
- alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on their admission of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't WP:OUTING people or contacting their employers. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.
- Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.
- BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,
- the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.
- AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.
- Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thisredrock (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Does Wikimedian in Residence apply?
EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit[REDACTED] seems analagous to | wikimedian in residence. See also WP:WIRCOI. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no WP:TEND. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- My situation is totally different to @EMsmile. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @EMsmile adjusting the page to favour her client (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the SRM article here. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per WP:DUE.
- Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding WP:OUTTING- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.
- Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile
Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. EMsmile is a paid editor who violated WP:OUTING - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight are highly disruptive - and that's notwithstanding the paid editing. Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose block, support WP:TROUTing EMS for almost WP:OUTTING, WP:TROUTing AJL for aggressive interactions, warning ITK for WP:OUTTING.- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.- the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically WP:WIRCOI suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:WIRCOI
WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages
- this seems not to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.
- want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi appliesBluethricecreamman (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by Bluethricecreamman - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. Thisredrock (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. Bluethricecreamman has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether EMsmile was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see User:EMsmile apologize for the WP:OUTING that occurred. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. EMsmile (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose (uninvolved) there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in simple ignorance (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not WP:PUNISH).
- That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, it fails a DUCK test, and looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor. What I see is a properly disclosed WP:PAID editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors. Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't WP:CPUSH going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :TiggerJay (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe everyone gets WP:TROUTs at this point and we move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.
- However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for 'potential civil-POV which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like this might come off is overly whitewashing, but
China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations.
but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does call into need for a closer look, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe everyone gets WP:TROUTs at this point and we move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group
- mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:WIRCOI
- Strong support. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, WP:NOTTHEM applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that WP:PAID only strongly discourages paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and IMO unthinkable They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit
: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.
I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- Personally, I am much more concerned about undeclared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. Liz 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I meant meat puppet. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Tentative oppose - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates with no opinion on indef block at this time.
From what I can see, Earth System Governance looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the COI guideline: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages". More broadly, we have a movement-wide custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution" (emphasis in the original). Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:
- August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client. All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA.
- Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary.
- Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted. Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with WP:PAYTALK , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of WP:TPO.
When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks." I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil.
EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Misplaced Pages now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Misplaced Pages editing policies.
." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page.
" Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Misplaced Pages to advocate for your client.
It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I looked at Earth System Governance Project last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics written 73% of the article, in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Misplaced Pages but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Misplaced Pages as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Misplaced Pages to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Misplaced Pages. The opportunity is to improve Misplaced Pages articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.
Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello User:Clayoquot, we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of WikiProject Climate Change. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (Earth System Governance Project (which is an alliance), nor the concept earth system governance itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website.
- FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: earth system governance and Earth System Governance Project, then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).
- FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.
- If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for Earth System Governance Project apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from earth system governance? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?
- Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.
- Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks in this thread but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." EMsmile (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that
he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community.
This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that
- yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to WP:COI/N, or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- did report to WP:COI/N Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they do make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. edits that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:COI/N put this back into our court. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile
I added this heading just now to break up a section that was getting long Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its
directaffiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from citing the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)- Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)?
- By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on opposition to SRM research (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).
- SRM is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)
- I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those grey areas while editing the solar radiation modification article as mentioned above by User:North8000. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the solar radiation modification article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged").
- Oh and should the section on my profile page where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the topic ban, you can add it to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about WP:DUE. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being
a pioneer in opposing SRM research
is sourced... to ETC Group itself). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) - EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a small set of exemptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.
- For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. EMsmile (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at Talk:Solar radiation modification violated WP:PAYTALK quite egregiously. Do you disagree?
- Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I tried to make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.
- Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."
- I believe my edits for the solar radiation modification article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the topic ban, you can add it to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about WP:DUE. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being
- The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its
Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page on the topic of ESG and its affiliates. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a symptom of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like this at SRM and this at Frank Biermann (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- (involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before). To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Femke, I've modified the Frank Biermann article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion.
- I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the Earth System Governance Project article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the solar radiation modification article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page here. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a topic ban or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like Solar radiation management. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction.
- At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a edit request to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for earth system governance" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be extended to future employers too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Femke. jp×g🗯️ 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support and will withdraw my proposal above. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are confirmed (below). North8000 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Femke. also this discussion has gone too long and is nearly 0.5 WP:TOMATs long. We should end it somehow, and some kinda editting restriction is warranted at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support While I do believe that EMS has made some positive contributions, they have also made some egregious errors. If this was not a situation of PE or COI, then at most we'd probably consider a voluntary ban, but given the PE/COI concerns, once you've lost the trust of the community, it is going to be extremely difficult to overcome that cloud. When doing PE/COI work one must be extremely carefully not to make any questionable or promotional edits, they must be 100% defendable, and what we've seen here is that there are multiple instances where that is absolutely not the case. It is a difficult choice because there is a mountain on good work, lots of history and many examples of following procedures and presuming good faith. As I mentioned early on, this might be a case of sealioning, where we've got a civil contributor who is still pushing for a specific POV. These are always difficult. But in looking back at specific edits, and even by EMS own admission, that mistakes were made, and the threshold for when we loose trust and faith in a PE has been exceeded. And while I'd hate to mess with someones livelihood and income, it does not appear that is EMS' primary income, and thus I think that it is appropriate that this ban also extend to any other PE works now and in the future. TiggerJay (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll be honest that without the COI element I'd not be seeking any sort of sanction bigger than a trout. However I take the COI part very seriously and that's the locus of my concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed! TiggerJay (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- (I'm going to use the COI term with the meaning which I think you intended....IMO the Wiki-meanings are too broad and variable). IMO the golden rule (which IMO was mistakenly taken out of the COI guideline) is (paraphrasing) that where influence from the COI connection overrides the duty to edit properly in the interests/objectives of Misplaced Pages, you have an (in practice) COI. And the policy says that in the highest-risk condition (PE) they are strongly discouraged (not forbidden) from editing directly. IMO good practice in relation to this is that edits where there is any COI type question about the edit that they should request somebody else to put it in. While I haven't taken a deep dive on their edits, from looking at the ones presented to make the case that they are problematic, I see only minor violations of that "good practice" and no explicit violations of policy. Another consideration in my mind is that IMO undisclosed paid editing is a huge problem in Misplaced Pages and IMO Misplaced Pages being overly rough on disclosed paid editing contributes to that "undisclosed" problem. Finally, the described voluntary restrictions if adhered to (and with them as a 60k editor with only a tiny fraction of their edits being PE, I expect would happen) would remove all question for a year and then be just normal practices (and all of that inevitably under a magnifying glass, with the obvious option of coming back here if needed) IMO would solve it. Which is why I suggest (only) the voluntary restrictions at this time Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll be honest that without the COI element I'd not be seeking any sort of sanction bigger than a trout. However I take the COI part very seriously and that's the locus of my concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Voluntary restrictions
@EMsmile: Just clarifying
- When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force.
- Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits?
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions:
- To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree.
- The second point: Yes, the PE arrangement was to improve the solar radiation modification article in several ways and in collaboration with others: one was just general improvements, structure, clarity, updated references, images, wikilinks and so forth. The other was to make the article more balanced because we felt that the current discourse about risks of SRM research was not very well described and relevant publications had not been cited. There was already a section on "criticism" when I started editing the article but as per WP:CRIT it wasn't well done (in my opinion). I started discussing this on the talk page of the SRM article in May 2024. There were some page watchers who agreed, some who disagreed - which is normal. And yes, I agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in future. Could I clarify this small point: When you say "ask someone else to put in any edits" how would that work in practice? Would pinging someone on the talk page, e.g. you, be acceptable or would people find that annoying and "pushy"? EMsmile (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- P.S. regarding the point made by Femke above ("You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago."): the sentence in question on the ESGP website in fact says (bolding added by me): "The Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community." This sentence actually means mainly to try to get accreditations at UN conferences for ESG-related scholars, who can then enter UN meetings as representatives of the ESG Foundation. It is not the representation of the “project”, which has no legal entity, no positions, no fixed income, etc. - I have made some changes to my user profile page too in order to explain it better. Hope this helps to clarify. EMsmile (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- That takes care of everything I asked about. I did a lot of work with perhaps wiki's most prominent PE (CorporateM) prominent because they had high visibility discussions all over the place on the whole idea and how to do it best/right. Maybe it's emblematic of the challenges that they are mostly gone now. Plus several others. Answering your question I know that there are lots of ways, (some are really backed up partly because most people don't know how to do a requested edit well) but what worked was just putting the requested edit on the article's talk page. Feel free to ping me there if you wish. The common mistake with requested edits to to not make it explicit. Say exactly what would be taken out and exactly what would be put in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza
- Aubrey Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Religião, Política e Futebol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Religião, Política e Futebol and ZanderAlbatraz1145 have both been edit warring at Aubrey Plaza over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.
Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. Liz 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at Talk:Aubrey Plaza, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sundayclose: Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says,
This complaint is not about the content directly
. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sundayclose: Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says,
- Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at Talk:Aubrey Plaza, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- There have been numerous edits to the Aubrey Plaza article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits.
- Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family.
- The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP 94.63.205.236. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
- @Sundayclose: Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
- During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, 74.12.250.57, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, 2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
- The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
- On 10 January, @Religião, Política e Futebol: made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
- Another IP, 2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
- On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
- On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
- Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
- On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
- Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
- I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
- In regards to the mention of Baena's suicide, this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
- @DiaMali: did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
- Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
- The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when @Ibeaa: removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
- On 7 January, IP 2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196 adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
- The next user to re-add the info was @ZanderAlbatraz1145:, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
- The IP 2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8 removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
- @Sundayclose: reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
- Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
- Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing
committed suicide
for the first time in this edit, which IP 50.71.82.63 fixed. Diff: - Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information five times each, no edit reasons in sight.
- I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
- Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
- On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
- Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
- Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
- Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is
accurate and properly sourced
. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the Jeff Baena article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff: - Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
- Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. Archive.
- I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
- After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
- I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
- Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem
vital enough
to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:
- This is a lot of data. But it seems like if edit-warring is the problem, a complaint filed at WP:ANEW or a request for page protection at WP:RFP would be more suitable than ANI. Liz 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to acknowledge the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. Kingsif (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given there's basically nothing on the talk page about any of this, I'd say some full-protection (or pblocks on the editors in question) for a short time may be in order. People need to discuss this on the article's talk page rather than just trying to shoehorn it into the article, and we may have to force the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would have to agree, the most we've got from the users I am concerned about is one who thinks they're above discussion, and one who thinks they're above explanation. The other user involved who was already blocked at least showed some awareness. Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given there's basically nothing on the talk page about any of this, I'd say some full-protection (or pblocks on the editors in question) for a short time may be in order. People need to discuss this on the article's talk page rather than just trying to shoehorn it into the article, and we may have to force the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to acknowledge the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. Kingsif (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Repeated copyvios by Manannan67
- Manannan67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Manannan67 has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (2020, 2020, a "final warning" in 2021 from Moneytrees, 2023, 2023), most recently from me, when I discovered a copyright violation they placed on Mariana de Jesús Torres. The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did remove one early warning from the talk page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to Anglo-Saxon mission which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. Manannan67 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to Mariana de Jesús Torres. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." Manannan67 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. Manannan67 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, the information you added to the article, which had to be revdeled as a clear copyright violation, is something you're now claiming you have no recollection of? — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. Manannan67 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." Manannan67 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to Mariana de Jesús Torres. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since it's been removed, I don't know what is in dispute. Manannan67 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "dispute", Manannan67, is whether or not you understand the legal severity of copyright violations, and whether or not you will make a firm commitment to refrain from copyright violations in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I looked at their most recent addition of significant addition prose to article space this material to the article Rodrigo de Cerrato, made last November after he first five warnings:
it seems that he traveled to different towns where there were centres of his Order with the intention of gathering information for his great work
It was intended to facilitate the preparation of sermons for preachers
In 1259 he lived in Segovia and in 1272 in Caleruega, where Domingo de Guzmán was originally from, probably researching to write the life of the holy founder.
- This is very obvious plagiarism of a non-free source. The fact that they, an editor with 16k+ edits, insist on viewing the inclusion of non-free external material as a dispute or sourcing issue is troubling. Could an admin please consider indefinitely blocking them from the article and draft namespaces until they understand the issues with their edits? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I looked at their most recent addition of significant addition prose to article space this material to the article Rodrigo de Cerrato, made last November after he first five warnings:
- The "dispute", Manannan67, is whether or not you understand the legal severity of copyright violations, and whether or not you will make a firm commitment to refrain from copyright violations in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of viewMisplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion, maybe more)
- Cherkash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see Russo-Ukrainian_War#Background, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4).
The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the Formula_one pages and even had raised the issue here (old link), with no visible actions following.
Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg
They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.
Other examples can be seen from commons:Special:Contributions/Cherkash, such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: example 1, example 2
The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262, United Nations General Assembly resolution A/73/L.47, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4.
I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content. Unas964 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the User talk page, e.g. about normalising separatist states, and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in the corresponding topic.
- I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via de facto statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often replicated by other contributors, which I cannot even comment on. Unas964 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the last time this was raised here.
- The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine).
- I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that Unas964 (talk · contribs) should adhere to WP:AGF while Cherkash (talk · contribs) needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I believe the IP editor above mistakenly posted in this section instead of at the section raised concerning their edits.-- Ponyo 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. Unas964 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
UN Resolutions are not Misplaced Pages guidelines. They're not even binding for the countries involved, let alone Misplaced Pages. UN Resolutions do not recognize Taiwan nor Israeli current borders, yet we recognize their independence and their de facto territories in out articles. De jure, there's no Taiwan, and Israel is still at war with Iraq since 1947. De jure, the Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Do we care? Misplaced Pages focuses on facts, the de facto state of the world, not bound by temporary laws made by temporary entities which often don't even recognize each other: according to Bhutan, de jure there's no Croatia; according to Greece, there's no Northern Cyprus; according to Serbia, there's no Kosovo; according to the UN, there's no Taiwan... should we follow them? Of course not. You're free to be pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, as long as you stick to facts. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their de facto state. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a fact that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes.
- Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map.
- As a corollary it is in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @Cherkash - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @Unas964 has seriously failed to assume good faith by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: I don't
have the terms backward there
. I literally stated thatDe jure, there's no Taiwan
, and also what I meant forfacts, the de facto state of the world
. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires competence. // and no, it is nota fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine
, as de jurethe Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union
, as I had already wrote, because de jure the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had de facto. Do better. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) - Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. CMD (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and Misplaced Pages:AGF. In theory, that does not align with Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT, since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the Russo-Ukrainian_War the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. Unas964 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration Unas964 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is fast reaching WP:NOTFORUM territory. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- We also have WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is fast reaching WP:NOTFORUM territory. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration Unas964 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: I don't
- @Simonm223: Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their de facto state. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. here). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the Khmer Rouge terror, Tiananmen Square massacre, Holocaust and 9/11 attacks by some de facto laws. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only Holodomor, the genocide of Crimean Tatars and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. Asharshylyk). That renders de facto maps a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality.
- Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. Unas964 (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, Unas964? Liz 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (WP:RUSUKR,Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some consensus or de facto bodrers pretexts, then indeed it has no sense.
- If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. Unas964 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a bit concerned that Unas964 has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes continuing to argue about the map, calling a warning from another editor regarding WP:CANVAS "pro-Russian attacks." this whole thing at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to WP:RGW was reverted with an edit summary of pro-Russian spam deleted - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. Unas964 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you hold an opinion, and all you get when you express that opinion is
multiplying warnings and threats...no support either
, a wise man at least considers the possibility that the one in the wrong might just, in fact, be himself. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you hold an opinion, and all you get when you express that opinion is
- I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. Unas964 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal - short duration block for Unas964
I am not going to ask for an indef here as I don't really want to bite the newbie but this has gone on for long enough. Unas964 is very aware that extended confirmed status is required to edit on the Russia / Ukraine conflict and yet continues not only to do so, but to do so in a way that is highly confrontational, completely fails to WP:AGF and that is replete with WP:NPA violations. They have a severe WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and hasten to accuse anyone who attempts to help them understand concepts such as WP:RGW of being Putinists. I think it's high time that they are demonstrated that such behaviour will have a consequence. A tban is inappropriate because this editor already should not be editing in this CTOP. So that really only leaves us with a block to get their attention and to hopefully stem this disruptive behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically this whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your proposal only enhances the pro-Russian stance and if enforced will serve as evidence that the Ukrainian (and according to the International Law) point of view is censored on Misplaced Pages, also making a precedent against Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT. This is harmful for the entire community that might thus be considered as anti-Ukrainian in general. Unas964 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've been trying to be nice to you and all you've done in response is insult me repeatedly. This isn't twitter. Stop acting like it is. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- support indef per the doubling down above of the Battleground Mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and indef'd. The editor - who has been around since 2019 - has apparently made all of one edit outside of this very narrow topic, and while they haven't made any articlespace edits since receiving the contentious-topic warning, their behavior in this discussion, and their talk page edits, make it clear that they are not here to help build a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Caste-based disruption
HistorianAlferedo has engaged in contentious WP:BATTLEGROUND style editing in the WP:CASTE related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in Rajput POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as WP:RAJ (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:
- , , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
- : clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
- , , , , : POV caste-based insertions
- , : POV caste-based removals
This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a WP:CASTE t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking , ). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: . Gotitbro (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Gotitbro, you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. Liz 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Done Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually i was only editing and adding new information along with genuine citations. I had no motive for any sort of vandalism or anything else. Based on the knowledge about various topics of Indian history i was just trying to contribute in a positive way. Moreover some of the allegations by user Gotitbro are totally irrelevant, i’m not an indian but interested in the topics related to Indian history. New editors should be supported by the old ones and not demotivated with false allegations. Alright, if the old editors don’t want the new ones to contribute to[REDACTED] even in a good way then i’ll definitely even delete my account from wikipedia. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- HistorianAlferedo, I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. Liz 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay @Liz. Please have a look at pages: Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq and Firuz Shah Tughlaq, I added relevant information along with scholarly work sources but user:@Gotitbro just reverted all the changes without even looking at the correct citations. That’s why i thought now i won’t edit and visit[REDACTED] as few users here just try to show off their ranks, there are good wikipedians and administrators too but a few of them are doing this with the new contributors. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- HistorianAlferedo, I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. Liz 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by User:SerChevalerie
I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with SerChevalerie, I had to take this to ANI.
To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of.
Both me and SerChevalerie were part of this WhatsApp group of Wikipedians from Goa. Having known each other online for over two years, and we shared the same native state. The problems arrived when he got back active on Misplaced Pages after a break of roughly 4 years and went on serious stalking my edits, the page I contributed, but mainly the pages that I created. As am In WP:Inclusionist and I love creating articles, but this was something he went overly critical on.
From June to August 2024, most of the edits SerChevalerie made were pertaining to the articles that I significantly worked on or created. During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS. It was until I finally took the decision to take it to WP:3O we reached a consensus after several days of discussion.
Over the course of some 30 articles that I created from June to August 2024, SerChevalerie has made edits which often times were seen as annoying and major stalking behaviour. He also likes to stay at the "top of the order" constantly as you can on articles such as Julião Menezes as per his latest "copyedit". During this period of two months almost entirely of his edits he has made were only pertaining to my articles.
When I had nominated his article Goa Revolution Day for SD, he then tried to solicit and I felt harrassed after he took his arguments to WhatsApp. Even after saying I don't want to discus this off-wiki he forced it upon me by confronting me in a group of 200-250 Wikipedians and having his arguments posted there. This is the same whatsapp group we were part of. And I have the relevant evidence with me.
SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly Gerald Pereira and a suspected COI paid editing on article like Subodh Kerkar. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see
He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here (Redacted). I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.
When I had to quit Misplaced Pages for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Misplaced Pages as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November this made me realise that SerChevalerie might have WP:OCD relating to my presence on Misplaced Pages itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article J. C. Almeida. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See . Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it.
I still feel constantly watched by this editor everytime I am on Misplaced Pages. I want to propose to the community for a block on SerChevalerie or having placed WP:Sanctions on articles that I create so that he stops this behaviour. He also knows my real name and I don't want to get WP:Outed or doxxed by him as we both are from Goa, India. I'm afraid he might just get my residence address and does any harm. I just want to get rid of this issue and move on. Rejoy(talk) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented.
"During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS."
- In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.
- If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided WP:HOUNDING. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.
- I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm, but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. Mlkj (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. -Lemonaka 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Toa_Nidhiki05: WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.
Toa Nidhiki05 has been guarding the hell out of the Republican Party (United States). They instantly revert any change against the status quo that they don't like, citing a need for consensus, then don't actually engage with discussions around those edits except to call for moratoriums on even talking about them while spewing bad faith assumptions, or trying to wikilawyer away disagreements. I'm not a long term editor at Republican Party (United States) and, frankly, don't want to be, but in the limited number of days I've been editing on this it's clearly an issue.
(The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value)
Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like. diff
More specifically this line:
Rather than persuade editors, it seems editors are attempting to force these changes through.
(right below an entire thread that was made before a controversial change specifically to discuss said change)
I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("or called for a moratorium on changes
") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content (Only one active discussion-engaged user
). Other editors, like @Cortador, have been calling them out for this as well.
Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.
There's a content dispute under-riding most of this, which frankly is probably best adjudicated at this point by literally anyone other than Toa or myself. The meat of this ANI is wholly independent of the content dispute, except insofar as Toa's apparently not been engaging in the most NPOV way with editors when it comes to sourcing requirements. I want to point out that despite Toa's reality-bending insistence I've been pretty open to admitting a different proposal for a change from others was better than my own idea. In an attempt to placate his revert-happy self on what I was sure would be controversial (removing 'conservative' from the dominant ideology of the party) I started by making a discussion thread highlighting that the sources that were being used didn't make that claim, including direct quotes from the papers. Except for admonishing editors for wanting change, he's mostly elected to just straight up ignore any substantive discussion over the exact thing he's reverting. This is clearly OWN and POV editing, and it looks like previous attempts to caution him for edit warring were met with 'Are you fucking kidding me.'. I'd honestly like to bow out of editing that page entirely for a while for so many reasons, but I don't want to leave it in a state where one editor has declared an article theirs.
Addendum: this TBAN for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The page-in-question should be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that the content dispute should be decided here. To be clear, 99% of the content dispute is moving one sentence earlier in the article and removing a source that failed verification. We're not talking about seeing how fast we can invoke Godwin's Law in a page about the GOP (though admittedly some editors are). I genuinely don't think the content in question actually substantial at all, which is why one editor increasingly spiralling into mudslinging over it while refusing to discuss changes beyond categorical rejection or highly mobile goalposts for inclusion is a problem. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page.
- What Warrenmck does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up all the time. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach.
- For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was Czello. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages.
- I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a minor faction, per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that
Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge?
- and you responded
Which is labeling the party as it.
- Which isn't how NPOV editing works.
- Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus.
I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes
- Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point here. Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. I did not make the change I knew would be controversial, that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal (diff) Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events.
- This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though.
- What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Literally in this ANI:
Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"
- That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page:
Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- You are making a distinction without a difference. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. Springee (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Toa_Nidhiki05 appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks WP:OWN:
An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
- The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a hell of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards.
- Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (diff, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has WP:WIKILAWYERed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As Cortador said,
"Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?"
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place after I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer WP:CPUSH problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an WP:OWN mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Springee appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. diff diff diff and diff. I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff:
The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late
- Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @The Four Deuces appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up all over[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. Springee (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find years worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments.
- If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling diff diff Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. Springee (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place after I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer WP:CPUSH problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an WP:OWN mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. Cortador (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. Nemov (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully WP:CPUSH and WP:SEALION are behavioural problems. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse (diff).
- while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree at all makes this pretty WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for Republican Party (United States). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Toa was TBANed for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was
Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.
- This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to WP:AE more than WP:AN/I. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. Springee (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.
- And very clearly retaliatory. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually.
- You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Misplaced Pages citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings
- Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the exact types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with Springee about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for the exact same behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a perfect example, in this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist.
This is because it says that the party isn't just a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist George Wallace and the fascist propagandist Father Coughlin. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop".Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- Ok here's the correct quote now:
The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.
This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.
While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear. - Now this article does compare the Democratic party as a whole to Trump on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is
It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it.
The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- Also, the New York Times introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data." Editorial and opinion commentary says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source.
- It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used.
- My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what WP:RSEDITORIAL says
When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.
Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what WP:RSEDITORIAL says
- Ok here's the correct quote now:
- Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to WP:AE more than WP:AN/I. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page. Maybe it would be best if editors heavily involved there, would avoid each other & allow newcomers room to give their input. Might lower the heat. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.
- It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at WP:AE? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions.
- If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources.
- On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. TFD (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- See Some types of sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
- Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist?
- If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. TFD (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have not claimed that I prefer news sources over academic sources, not that news sources override academic consensus. You are asking me to defend a position I haven't actually taken i.e. you are strawmanning. Cortador (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
If I am following this properly, via the thread on the linked talk page:
- The OP made a thread on Talk:Republican Party (United States) saying that we should change the article to say that it was "anti-intellectual" and "far-right".
- Toa_Nidhiki05 said that this was a bad idea, and some stuff about previous consensus against doing this.
- ???
- AN/I thread
Is there anything I'm missing here? jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning?
- But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN:
There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines
. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out.
- You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN:
- You’ve been doing this for years and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been very explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @JPxG’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a WP:CPUSH. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, just in case anyone wants to review it. Liz 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @JPxG engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating
You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings
- In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification diff diff with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing diff diff.
- A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I expected, @Warrenmck: - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them.
- First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the Stacey Abrams page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of this report.
- Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you still cannot define what POV I am pushing - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning is. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is yours, because it's been utterly ridiculous.
- You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. I think everything I said is correct. Your proposal was bad. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly.
- Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me here of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to agree with me.
- Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over.
- I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting my time, you are wasting your time, and you're wasting everyone's time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. Cortador (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are several new peer reviewed sources that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of multiple other editors and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:POV. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are several new peer reviewed sources that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of multiple other editors and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example:
Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.
- Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the context in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a diff.
- 1. You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to.
- 2. Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for years, once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not
- 3. In the absence of any substantive objection, WP:RS material should be added in.
- WP:ONUS doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and WP:IDONTLIKEIT then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. Cortador (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're going to accuse @Springee: of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here.
- Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a local consensus exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you.
- With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @Springee, who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. Springee (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @Springee, who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, just in case anyone wants to review it. Liz 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You’ve been doing this for years and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been very explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @JPxG’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a WP:CPUSH. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Warrenmck, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can back away Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reading through this, it does seem that Toa is engaged in polite POV pushing and dismissing any source they dislike, along with some WP:POINTy tagging in retaliation for their own cites being questioned. At this point, I think an WP:AE filing for the American Politics CTOP is needed. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you please explain what POV I am pushing here?
- Additionally: I want to emphasize that my source checks have resulted in no change to the prose of the article - this is because each of the source groupings (which had over a half-dozen, or verging on a dozen citations each) have at least one or more source(s) that actually meet the claim in question, and I think the claims in question are, demonstrably, pretty accurate. The source reviews are simply removing cases of citation overkill that don't actually meet the specific claims in question. As far as I can tell, none of these citation groupings were added by Warrenmck or other involved editors in question here; I didn't object on page to the inclusion of content related to right-wing populism, I didn't object to it being added to the infobox, and I didn't object to it being added to the lead - and I don't object to the inclusion of said content now. The only thing I object to is the inclusion of citations that don't back up claims. Do you have any specific objections to the sources that I've tagged? Toa Nidhiki05 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Repeated WP:GS/AA violations
On 26 October 2024, I informed User:Scherbatsky12 about the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by WP:GS/AA such as the following: Ibrahim Rahimov, Hokuma Aliyeva, Khalil Rza Uluturk, and made poorly sourced POV additions such as:
Not only Scherbatsky12 was aware about, and even deleted the GS/AA notice , they still made several articles in its violation regardless and made GS/AA breaching additions that also include POV poorly sourced edits. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given them a final warning on the matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consider revoking EC status on Scherbatsky when he reaches 501 total edits. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: "On the day of the performance, there was a large audience, most of whom were Armenians". It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given them a final warning on the matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again.
- This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were alerted is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't competent enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- And now that I'm back after having power out for a couple of days due to the storm, I see they've continued editing. I've blocked for 48 hours, hopefully that will be enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were alerted is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't competent enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Danny5784
Danny5784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not seem to have the maturity and judgement to be a productive editor. Despite a litany of talk page warnings and efforts by multiple editors to explain things to them, they are continuing to create unneeded pages. Of the 18 articles they've created, 9 have been redirected (mostly at AfD), 2 deleted, and 4 currently have unanimous delete/redirect consensus at AfD. Three of their most recent creations are particularly noteworthy:
- After Draft:New Jersey Transit 6539-6549 was declined by Stuartyeates, and I warned them that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 created it anyway.
- Danny5784 created NJ Transit bus garages with poor sourcing, much of it from a user-generated wiki. After Djflem wrangled it into a useful list, Danny5784 created both New Jersey Transit bus garages and NJ Transit Bus Garage Fleet/Routes apparently as content forks.
Danny5784 also has issues with copyright: they uploaded a large number of now-deleted files on Commons and seem unwilling to actually obtain verifiable permission, then did the exact same thing here, plus using blatantly false non-free content criteria.
With 460 edits over 15 months, Danny5784 is past the point where these can just be dismissed as newbie mistakes. They are a rather young editor who is unwilling or unable to follow basic norms such as notability, reliable sourcing, and copyright. Until they demonstrate more maturity, I believe a prohibition from page creation (article, template, and file upload) is needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.
- Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than high school so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. Toyota683 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear
Confirmed result.-- Ponyo 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem, ever, with unarchiving, The Bushranger. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. Liz 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem, ever, with unarchiving, The Bushranger. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. Liz 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear
- I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clerical note that this user is not the similarly named DannyS712. jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article
LivinAWestLife made a large change to the Republican Party article which changed the ideology of the party from the consensus Center-right to fascist. They quickly then changed the text to "far-right" . Any seasoned editor should know such behavior is beyond reckless and clearly disruptive. Springee (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism is vandalism and is not funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a very low tolerance for trolls, especially in contentious topics. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that there are jokes, and then there are "oh hell no" situations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that there are jokes, and then there are "oh hell no" situations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you really have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see WP:HTVC. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't you have just used inspect element? Doombruddah (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're taking a very long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. Doombruddah (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back» and there are no consequences? XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their rope. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. Departure– (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. Springee (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back» and there are no consequences? XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. Doombruddah (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're taking a very long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism is vandalism and is not funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a very low tolerance for trolls, especially in contentious topics. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Editor repeatedly reverting edits
Cambial_Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor is starting editwar again, just reverted my edit, and has done this before with these edits A and B, repeatedly.! I tried to communicate on talk page but editor just went away! For such behavior the editor has been blocked before
This editor last time also pushed me to violate WP:3RR , While i was trying to improve the SIF article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per WP:CRITS where it is clearly mentioned
"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."
Because, before this, i was reading similar article, Minjung theology and the criticism section make it easy to understand.
I don't know why the editor doesn't understand Theology and criticism are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense before, and now this again! Sokoreq (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Sokoreq,
- First WP:ANEW is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. Liz 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. Liz 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry@Liz actually before this, i went on your talk page to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided edit warnings. Sokoreq (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's your action, not theirs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are the one who started removing/reverting edits repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on talk page to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are doing again. Plese see SIF edit history. Sokoreq (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". WP:3RR is a bright line. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are the one who started removing/reverting edits repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on talk page to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are doing again. Plese see SIF edit history. Sokoreq (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's your action, not theirs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. Liz 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They edit in group, while i started a discussion first but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on talk page but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. Sokoreq (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the associated talk page for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? Sokoreq (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Science_of_Identity_Foundation is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG sanction is appropriate here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are we sure they understand? Moxy🍁 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie Yeh, I went to the COI noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my talk page. What do you want to prove through this? Sokoreq (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with User:Hipal from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at WP:ANEW. Liz 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. Liz 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I read over Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Science of Identity Foundation discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. Liz 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on WP:ANEW. Thanks again Sokoreq (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. Liz 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Usually, when an editor returns to their edit war after being blocked, without once contributing to the article talk page discussions, they are blocked.
I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is WP:NOTHERE , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent canvassing, here and here and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --Hipal (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're up to, but from the beginning, I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks Sokoreq (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above
That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Hipal, can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? Liz 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if they are using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, their own behavior. --Hipal (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hipal, can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? Liz 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Trolling at Talk:Denali
Done (for now). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
WP:RBI please. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:AIV? Tarlby 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected now, thanks User:Isabelle Belato Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. Isabelle Belato 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato and Acroterion: Needs talk page access yanked too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn
Resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
EWN report stalled, so bringing this here. User:GiggaHigga127 and I engaged in an edit war at Conor Benn, which began as a content dispute but is now more of conduct issue. Less than 12 hours after he was blocked (for good reason), User:Dennis Definition shows up as a brand new single-purpose account to make the exact same edit for the "win", whilst predictably denying any connection. How is this not gaming?
I'd be happy to hash out the original content dispute at WikiProject Boxing and see if anything needs tweaking at our style guide, but not when there's obvious bad faith tag teaming going on. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- Ponyo 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've restored it to the pre-socking version and Daniel Case has semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've restored it to the pre-socking version and Daniel Case has semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Potential Block Evasion by IP 47.67.231.5 (Original IP range 47.69.0.0, first sock IP 80.187.75.118)
An IP is behaving similary to an IP range blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to block evasion.
The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.
Suspect Second blocked IP Redacted II (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- EDIT: The IP is now
bannedblocked, with the original IP'sbanblock extended by another three months. Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- WP:BLOCKNOTBAN - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the correction on my wording. Redacted II (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BLOCKNOTBAN - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Harassment and personal attacks
Riventree called another editor and myself a moron, said to track down the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an idiot. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. Beeblebrox 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this:
'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA)
. Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per our own internal classification (e.g. WP:GGTF/WP:GENSEX) it is formally a "contentious topic", and the article feminism is in the {{political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. jp×g🗯️ 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:
- "The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
- "Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
- "When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."
- I am not really sure why these sentences would, prima facie, constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this:
- I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:
- From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.
- I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (Special:Permalink/1271035842#User:TTYDDoopliss_and_gender-related_edits), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far
and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. jp×g🗯️ 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JPxG He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Amended, thanks. jp×g🗯️ 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JPxG: Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what Cambridge's definition says:
to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:
I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.
- Dictionary.com says:
Follow successfully, locate, as in I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.”
- Collins says:
If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.
She had spent years trying to track down her parents.
I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.
The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.
There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.
- Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. jp×g🗯️ 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said
Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page
andAnd: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page.
Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says
"Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there."
on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person:
I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment.
This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person:
- I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said
- No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: commute block to topic ban
Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator explicitly said no) and JPxG's cowboy admin action should not stand, but a wheel war isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here.
- Support as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lengthen the block if you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to Retelling (1, 2). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:
- : unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
- Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in Murder of George Floyd.
- : Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
- User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020#Do you even READ my comments anymore, or do you just click "revert" out of habit? shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
- Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive 3#Softening of exceedingly authoritative language and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
- Tried to make the article Millennium Challenge 2002 more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying
UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all.
1.
- Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @JPxG's concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:
- Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least WP:GENSEX broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Reinstate indef
A discussion is needed on this to prevent WP:WHEEL from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.
- Support as proposer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose reinstating indef, support gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Voorts and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by GreenLipstickLesbian. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support given the history documented by GreenLipstickLesbian, the revdel'd content described above, and the obvious foot-dragging in the appeal. If they are let back in then it should at least be an AP2 / Gensex topic ban given the user's inability to control their strong emotions in that topic area; but the previous outing coupled with the "track down" comment in particular crosses the line. --Aquillion (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I can’t for the life of me explain why the indef was overturned in the first place. The PAs were bad enough, especially when you consider how tame the blurb that instigated them is. The Kip 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think it would be better to see what they do after the two-week block and what it would merit, re-indeffing already is a bit premature. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. That was unacceptable, but a first offense, and two weeks is plenty. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocks aren't punitive. They're preventative. We don't reduce block lengths because it's a first offense. Riventree made a threat and doesn't understand what he did was wrong. Until he understands what he did was wrong and commits to not doing it, a preventative indef is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- My opposition is based on the understanding of blocks as preventative, of course. That it's a first offense is evidence that there's not a high risk of re-offending. He's said on his Talk that he's sorry about everything he said. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- See GreenLipstickLesbian's comments above; this is not a first incident. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- My opposition is based on the understanding of blocks as preventative, of course. That it's a first offense is evidence that there's not a high risk of re-offending. He's said on his Talk that he's sorry about everything he said. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocks aren't punitive. They're preventative. We don't reduce block lengths because it's a first offense. Riventree made a threat and doesn't understand what he did was wrong. Until he understands what he did was wrong and commits to not doing it, a preventative indef is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support and would support defining this as a community ban. The outburst was unacceptable on its own, but as it's been shown that it's the latest in a pattern of unacceptable actions constituting harassment, combined with a history of blatantly POV commentary and corresponding edits in article space, this editor should not be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: I think an indef for an editor who has behaved the way they have, historically and recently, will be a positive preventative measure. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a massive overreaction. * Pppery * it has begun... 07:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Given Cullen's description of the old edits, if Riventree wishes for a third chance to edit, they should demonstrate a much better understanding of the harassment policy than a
<shamefaced grimace>
. Asking other constructive editors who actually do things like understand sourcing guidelines and NPOV to spend time putting up with personal attacks and harassment will drive them off. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Anonymous8206
Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Anonymous8206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at Donald Trump for over a year. Examples: .
They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BLP policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: Special:PermanentLink/1268615581#Liddle Hart.
I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate.voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) - I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to Talk:Donald Trump in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual
(non-admin closure) Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating WP:HID. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As the title suggests, this includes:
- SuvGh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Camarada internacionalista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See WP:COMMUNICATE.
Both of them were sufficiently warned. Capitals00 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't currently editing it appears. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a WP:FORUM attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. Borgenland (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. Capitals00 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked both editors indefinitely. Hate is disruptive. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks
2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) I saw an IP making an unmistakable personal attack on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and all of their edits are like this, it seems. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. Departure– (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) EF 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Incivility and edit-warring
After being explained by Wiznut at 1.00am UTC today about how even discussing through edit summaries while reverting in good faith is edit warring, Thelittlefaerie has opened a discussion on the article talk and stopped edit warring. Additionally, they are now aware that making personal attacks is prohibited and have issued an apology to editors they attacked while in a heated argument. As a talk discussion is now open for content issues, and this user now seems aware about how we resolve disputes here on Misplaced Pages, I am closing this section with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur. I think a little WP:ROPE is justified here as they are a new editor, who now knows about the dispute resolution processes and is now engaging collaboratively. MolecularPilot 06:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is concerning user User:Thelittlefaerie (talk and contributions). A new user, who initially made several good faith mistakes related to providing sources and not using original research. However, he also decided that the Afghanistan population at List of countries and dependencies by population needed to be correct. A history of the edit war, which involved Thelittlefaerie vs three other editors (including me):
Users involved:
Thelittlefaerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wizmut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MIHAIL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dates:
20 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie changes the figure without a source, which is reverted by me. For this article, unsourced changes happen regularly, so I did not take the effort to give Thelittlefaire much explanation.
21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.
22 Dec 2024 : I revert, mentioning the selection criteria for this article's sources. Thelittlefaerie reverts, and also reverts an unrelated change. I leave it, and instead start a topic on the talk page.
26 Dec 2024 : User User:MIHAIL (talk and contributions) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)
3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase "This is your final straw."
7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: "why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism". In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates.
16 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie again, this time including in his edit summary "And now you are acting like a complete fool. I am DONE WITH THIS. You are just a terrible person." and also "Either stop or I'll keep making edits." This edit was particularly troublesome, not only for the incivility, but because he reverted over a dozen unrelated edits. This was reverted by User:Magnolia677.
17 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie says he "could not reach out to you Magnolia677" (I can see no such attempt) and reverts again. This again reverts over a dozen unrelated changes, so I do the revert this time, and also try to warn Thelittlefaerie on the talk page and on his user page.
22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: "I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."
I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.
Wizmut (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to WP:LTA-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. MolecularPilot 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does seem like this could have gone to WP:ANEW. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from User:Thelittlefaerie. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. Liz 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Thelittlefaerie speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this.
- I think if you can apologise and agree to not make personal attacks against other editors again, and refrain from edit warring (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek dispute resolution.
- Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! MolecularPilot 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M.
- Thank you,
- Thelittlefaerie Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- (I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Thelittlefaerie speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does seem like this could have gone to WP:ANEW. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from User:Thelittlefaerie. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. Liz 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Update: Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) MolecularPilot 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Swagsgod
(non-admin closure) Swagsgod blocked and TPA revoked. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can User:Swagsgod please be swiftly blocked? They are constantly creating inappropriate pages. They are listed at AIV, but the stream of new pages continues quite rapidly. Fram (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking into it. jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God
Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests
- etc. jp×g🗯️ 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by @Fram:). Let me know if I have missed anything. jp×g🗯️ 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Gone. —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as
Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis
was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? Meters (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as
- Gone. —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by @Fram:). Let me know if I have missed anything. jp×g🗯️ 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source
The following IP Editor(s) have been making continuous changes to the flags on the Islamic State of Iraq page without any sources to backup their claims, when the changes are reverted, they just go back and revert the revert and still provide no source, thus causing what I believe to be an unnecessary disruption.
2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:d12c:6979:d06c:9d74, 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:ec:5fe:fa19:caa0, 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:7c47:7be6:c3c9:7078 and 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:6d71:4017:3ed8:b70d Catalyst GP real (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
142.190.62.131
Long-term abuse possible proxy vandal operating out of Alabama, vandalism-only account. Almost all edits to their talk page before the three-year-block are warnings or include Huggle tags(see tak page hist). The reason I'm reporting this user on ANI instead of AVI, is because of the user continuing to vandalize Misplaced Pages after blocks that sometimes took years to expire, one time even two years, which might fall under chronic intractable behavioral problems. This user is currently blocked for 3 years after I already reported them at AVI, but will likely continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages again after the block. This user has been vandalizing Misplaced Pages since 2020. The IP is from Alabama and belongs to a company named "Southern Light, LLC". I don't know if the user is actually operating out of Alabama, or if they are using a proxy. I've seen multiple IPs from the "142" range that are vandalizing Misplaced Pages or contributing unconstructively, although I don't think they have much to do with this user. Their edits to the page "Athenian democracy" didn't get reverted for over two years. Three of their edits got deleted, including their first edit. RaschenTechner (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP addresses generally do not correlate to a person. In most cases, they are randomly assigned to a customer on that ISP, then cycle around to another random customer. If there's a long history of petty vandalism, it could potentially be a school, library, public transportation, or some other shared IP with lots of users. Every so often, I think, "I should write an intro to IP addresses", but the best I've come up with yet is User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors. And while there are peer-to-peer proxies and VPNs all over the place, there's generally little reason for normal users get worried about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles
This situation looks resolved. Liz 04:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An IP range user (2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) has been adding contentious or poorly sourced material to a variety of articles related to Canadian politics (including BLPs). I haven't been able to warn them as the IP changes frequently but did let them know here why I reverted their additions. They've also been causing problems in other articles with unreliable sources or poor information eg 1 eg 2.
The user does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia productively. Citing (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Tried notifying them here for what that's worth. Citing (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could I please get some help here? IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using 2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is Confirmed block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been blocked twice previously for disruption.-- Ponyo 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, User:Ponyo. And this IP as well? Paul Erik 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Paul Erik, I got that /64 as well.-- Ponyo 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Citing (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Paul Erik, I got that /64 as well.-- Ponyo 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, User:Ponyo. And this IP as well? Paul Erik 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is
Abusive user
Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved from the help desk. Courtesy link: Opolito (talk · contribs), filed by Shaggydan (talk · contribs), moved by Departure– (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User Opolito is flagging users, including me, for vandalism when there is no vandalism. Who is able to restrict his account and remove his warnings and how do I bring this to their attention? Shaggydan (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a matter for the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. Departure– (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shaggydan. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for this edit of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shaggydan: - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as this will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at this edit, I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. TiggerJay (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shaggydan: Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? Shaggydan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with actual personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism.
You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? Shaggydan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shaggydan: Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.
- I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many characters are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.
- Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.
- He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.
- I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."
- Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."
- 29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.
- On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"
- These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.
- I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. Shaggydan (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information
- 93.204.189.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Those three accounts all appear to be the same person, who is doing mass removal of information with minimal to no notes. I have reverted some of their edits on Gerald Butler (writer) (because they removed information that I added and sourced myself), but user continuously reverts. After quickly going through their other edits, it doesn't appear they are making any constructive edits. I'd love some help dealing with this issue.--Bricks&Wood talk 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their edits at Gerard Butler don't look unreasonable to me, trimming information that, while sourced, is tangential at best to the subject of the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP
Edit summary revdel'd and GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs) blocked for one week for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies if this is the incorrect location, is a BLP violation and may need redacting. Flat Out (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:REVDELREQUEST, you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've made a note of that. Flat Out (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
revoke TPA for User:Xpander1?
Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I guess I shouldn't since it is me that they are deliberately pestering with nuisance pings after being asked repeatedly to stop. I know I could have muted them, and I now have, but I shouldn't have had to, they should just stop acting so obnoxious. Beeblebrox 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations
Dear admins, I am reaching out to request a review of the recent deletions of articles related to the Astana platform. While I have already contacted the administrator responsible for the deletions, I believe a third-party review would ensure fairness and transparency. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. I understand that concerns have been raised about alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts, particularly regarding my interest in Randa Kassis and related topics. I would like to clarify that my interest in Randa Kassis stems from her international prominence, especially during the period when her meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and her role in the Astana platform gained significant media coverage. This explains the connection between my edits to her page and other related articles. My contributions have focused solely on adding reliable references and improving information with a neutral tone, as reflected in the edit history. Additionally, the articles in question were edited by multiple users and administrators over time, highlighting a shared interest in Syria’s geopolitical significance and its key figures. The collaborative nature of these edits reflects diverse perspectives rather than coordinated efforts. If there is concrete evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct, I kindly request that it be presented. I fully support Misplaced Pages’s principles of transparency and remain committed to addressing any legitimate concerns.
It is also worth noting that the articles about Randa Kassis and Fabien Baussart include critical and controversial perspectives. At no point have I attempted to remove or alter critical content or promote a specific narrative. My sole intent has been to ensure accuracy and neutrality.
I am happy to cooperate with all of you. Thanks for your time. Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrivain Wagner (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deletion review is what you are looking for. This noticeboard doesn't handle reviews of recent deletions of articles. And I'm not seeing any reports about "alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts", on this noticeboard or on your talk page, so it's unclear how we can help you in that regard. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify what this is about, please see Astana Platform - 21:22 UTC 5 Jan 2025 version here, and 14:00 UTC 22 Jan 2025 version here. My apologies for not using {{Template:Diff}}, it's a bit too maths-y for me. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- For added context, see this AARV thread, from where the user was sent here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in Randa Kassis following her meeting with Donald Trump Jr., which was widely covered by newspapers and the press. I understand that she is seen as a controversial figure, particularly due to her relationship with Russia, as noted by Psychloppos. However, it is important to recognise her contributions as part of the opposition in achieving two significant initiatives: the Astana Platform, which she proposed to the first Kazakh president and successfully implemented to halt further Moscow Platform rounds, and the Constitutional Committee in 2017, endorsed by the troika and the United Nations as a pathway to peace. Notably, the Astana process was accepted by a large number of brigades, and the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) as well as the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) participated in the Constitutional Committee. There are numerous secondary sources confirming that.
- I would like to emphasise that I am not a UPE and that my contributions have been made in good faith.
- I’m asking for your assistance in reviewing the deletion of the Astana content. Moreover I would like to highlight that decisions on Misplaced Pages are meant to be collective, not individual, which is why I believe in Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable platform. Thanks for your help.@Shirt58: Your message here. Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry again, due to my inexperience with templates, I asked AI to help me with pinging, and I copied and pasted without deleting« your message». 😔🙏 Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- A word to the wise - people tend to look poorly upon chatbot generated complaints at this board. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding me of that. I admit I don’t have much experience with templates, but I’ll make more effort to learn and improve going forward. If needed, I’ll reach out to an admin or experienced editor for help. I appreciate your understanding as I continue contributing.🙏 Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- A word to the wise - people tend to look poorly upon chatbot generated complaints at this board. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry again, due to my inexperience with templates, I asked AI to help me with pinging, and I copied and pasted without deleting« your message». 😔🙏 Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- For added context, see this AARV thread, from where the user was sent here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify what this is about, please see Astana Platform - 21:22 UTC 5 Jan 2025 version here, and 14:00 UTC 22 Jan 2025 version here. My apologies for not using {{Template:Diff}}, it's a bit too maths-y for me. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I was pinged to this discussion, but have no recollection of any involvement. It's not a topic which interests me. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply; I greatly appreciate it. While I’m not experienced with templates, I like to occasionally make contributions when I can.
- The admin “Squirrel Conspiracy” merged the page for the Astana Platform into the Randa Kassis page. I am unsure who can help me review this deletion. If you check my contributions, you’ll see that I tried reaching out to the admin but received no response. I also requested a review to address and resolve the misunderstanding, but I haven’t had any luck so far.
- Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- That appears to be normal editing under WP:BLAR rather than administrative action. As such it is a content dispute and off-topic here. Take it up on the talk page of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been pinged to this discussion, so here's my two cents. I support this action (which I originally proposed) and this one by @The Squirrel Conspiracy:. The same could perhaps be done with the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians : that group did exist but from the few sources I could find it seems to have been pretty negligible and to have evaporated pretty quickly. Astana Platform may warrant an article but I agree that in its latest form the page was pretty much "unfixable". Mentions of the peace talks in Astana should be developed in Syrian peace process, and it should of course specified that the so-called Astana process was sponsored by Russia and boycotted by the opposition's High negotiation committee.
- I can't tell if it was the work of a paid editor, but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person or several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages, make her look more important than she actually was within the Syrian opposition, obfuscate her ties to Russia and perhaps even embellish her professional credentials. The Randa Kassis page and all mentions of her and her role in the Syrian civil war, the Syrian opposition and the peace talks endorsed by Russia need to be cleaned up and closely monitored. Psychloppos (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi everyone,
- As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in Randa Kassis following her meeting with Donald Trump Jr., which was widely covered by newspapers and the press. I understand that she is seen as a controversial figure, particularly due to her relationship with Russia, as noted by Psychloppos. However, it is important to recognise her contributions as part of the opposition in achieving two significant initiatives: the Astana Platform, which she proposed to the first Kazakh president and successfully implemented to halt further Moscow Platform rounds, and the Constitutional Committee in 2017, endorsed by the troika and the United Nations as a pathway to peace. Notably, the Astana process was accepted by a large number of brigades, and the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) as well as the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) participated in the Constitutional Committee. There are numerous secondary sources confirming that.
- I would like to emphasise that I am not a UPE and that my contributions have been made in good faith.
- I’m asking for your assistance in reviewing the deletion of the Astana content. Moreover I would like to highlight that decisions on Misplaced Pages are meant to be collective, not individual, which is why I believe in Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable platform. Thanks for your help. Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- To put some flesh on the bones of the suggestion made above by Psychloppos that they are
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person or several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages
... details can be found in this recent post elsewhere by The Squirrel Conspiracy, mentioning various accounts including Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam. - A recent sockpuppet investigation into Hazar Sam seems to have come up with nothing. However, I note that Ecrivain Wagner was not included in that SPI.
- The activity of multiple SPA type accounts in relation to Randa Kassis and related subjects extends beyond English Misplaced Pages to French Misplaced Pages (and perhaps beyond, I don’t know). In that connection it may be worth noting that three of Ecrivain Wagner’s few non-Kassis related edits (on English Misplaced Pages) relate to the British TV show Slow Horses ( , and ) and that a month or so later Hazar Sam was editing the equivalent article on French Misplaced Pages, here , making the identical point (that it is a British series rather than a US one). Both the Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam accounts are active on both English and French Misplaced Pages. Hazar Sam is the primary author of the (English) Randa Kassis article (38.2% of the current text).
- The level of coincidence here seems rather extreme given that the TV series has no connection to Randa Kassis etc. It may be worth someone’s while to re-run the SPI including Ecrivain Wagner (not a process I am familiar with unfortunately, otherwise I would do it myself).
- I have no opinion on the issues of promotion or whether the Astana/Kassis redirect was right or wrong. I just happened to spot the coincidence above and thought I should mention it. Axad12 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some further detail here. The Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam accounts show very similar patterns of activity on both English and French Misplaced Pages.
- English Misplaced Pages:
- Ecrivain Wagner account opened on 20 Feb 2016. It is then dormant for over 3 years.
- Hazar Sam opened their account on 19 Mar 2016 and started editing on Randa Kassis a fortnight later. The Hazar Sam account is then almost entirely dormant for the better part of 3 years before starting to edit around the Syrian peace process on 19 May 2019.
- The long dormant Ecrivian Wagner then starts editing (on the same sort of subject matter) on 25 Jun 2019 (i.e. a few weeks after Hazar Sam returns from a similarly long break).
- Both accounts are then very active in that topic area in Jun/Jul 2019 before both cease editing altogether. Both then re-commence editing in the same topic area in Sep-Nov 2019. Both are then entirely dormant for a year until Sept-Oct 2020 when both start again.
- The Wagner account is then entirely dormant for 3 and a half years until May 2024, when it makes a few edits, later making some edits on Randa Kassis in Sept 2024. Then, apart from the Slow Horses activity (noted in a previous post), it is dormant until a few days ago when it becomes animated re: the Astana/Kassis redirect.
- The Hazar Sam account is also almost entirely dormant for an almost identical period from Oct 2020 to Mar 2024, barring a few Kassis related edits. It only makes a handful of edits during 2024 before starting a significant amount of Kassis-related activity in December 2024.
- Activity on French Misplaced Pages is basically the same, with both accounts being active in Sep/Oct 2020 and Oct 2024 and otherwise being pretty much entirely dormant.
- I would therefore suggest that the periods when these accounts are active and dormant pretty much mirror each other all the way from 2016 to 2024, both on English and French Misplaced Pages, that they are pretty much always editing solely in the same topic area, and that there is very strong reason to believe that both accounts are thus being operated by the same end user. Axad12 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- To put some flesh on the bones of the suggestion made above by Psychloppos that they are
- That appears to be normal editing under WP:BLAR rather than administrative action. As such it is a content dispute and off-topic here. Take it up on the talk page of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since Randa Kassis - as far as I know - lives in France and has made some appearances in the French media, published a book in France and so on, it makes sense that a French speaker interested in the topic of the Syrian civil war would be at least a little familiar with her (that is, if they do not have actual connections with her). Psychloppos (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- True, but that doesn’t explain why the end user was apparently maintaining two accounts on English Misplaced Pages - one for the purpose of being a major contributor to various Kassis-related articles, and one for the purpose of being a minor contributor and complaining on various different forums when those same articles were impacted by a redirect.
- The user has already admitted to indulging in WP:LOUTSOCK behaviour , which they describe as
enjoy a little anonymous fun
. The Slow Horses activity and the overall timeline from 2016-2024 indicates very strongly that the user was operating two registered accounts over an extended period of time. - And, if further proof is needed…
- Apart from the various Kassis-related articles which both accounts have edited (plus the unrelated Slow Horses), they have also edited the article for Eric (TV series), making identical edits here and here under the two different accounts.
- The user has already asked to be blocked here during a recent discussion on their talk page re: SPI, personal attacks and legal threats. They say they are
tired of the rules
and thatIf blocking me makes you happy, then by all means, crack on—I’ve no desire left to contribute. I won’t bite my tongue just to win your approval and keep engaging on a platform that’s rapidly losing its credibility
. - Maybe it's time for an admin to let the user have what it seems they are looking for. Axad12 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess you're right. Psychloppos (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for raising your concerns. I’m open to any necessary processes, including CheckUser, to help resolve this misunderstanding. I understand the importance of clarifying these doubts, and I want to affirm that my goal has always been to contribute in good faith. Additionally, I’d like to highlight that my contributions to articles about Randa Kassis were made with a neutral tone and were always supported by reliable references. 🙏 Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to GPTzero, your response directly above was "100% probability AI generated" - but that was fairly obvious because it completely failed to address any of the actual concerns.
- I also note that Hazar Sam has been a frequent user of AI and actually used it for their long self defence at the recent SPI, here , a post which also showed up as "100% probability AI generated".
- So, another similarity between the two accounts...
- Let's be honest here... you've used up a lot of good will with your conduct under the Hazar Sam account over the last month or so. So when another user redirected one of the articles you'd done a lot of your SPA work on you figured you'd better use the 2nd account you'd been hiding since 2016 rather than the one where you'd recently been uncivil etc.
- But the sockpuppetry didn't work. Axad12 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- The same user (under their Hazar Sam account) was recently at ANI on 24th Dec (here and meritless chatbot generated retaliation here ).
- Presumably that previous recent appearance at ANI was why the user attempted to raise their complaint about the Astana/Kassis redirect in every conceivable forum other than ANI before eventually bringing it here and running the risk of being rumbled as a sock. Axad12 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Mass Removal of External Links by User:Dronebogus.
I’d like to bring attention to the actions of User:Dronebogus, who has been systematically removing entire external links sections from several hobby-related articles, including Knitting, Origami, and others. While they cite WP:LINKFARM and reliability concerns, the external links guideline (WP:EL) explicitly permits some links that may not meet reliability standards but are still useful to readers (e.g., learning resources from knowledgeable sources). Other users oppose these actions but this user is not willing to compromise.
Here are some examples of their removals:
These sections are standard for hobby-related articles, and the wholesale removals appear to go against community norms. Despite discussions with other editors (most recent discussion here: ]), they have continued this behavior without consensus.
I’ve already notified the user about this discussion. Input from administrators or the broader community would be appreciated to address this recurring issue.
Thank you, JD Gale — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD Gale (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found one of the discussions you refer to: for interested readers—Talk:Pitman_shorthand#External_links ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- And pertaining to that discussion and article, these are the external links Dronebogus removed.
- And at Origami, these external links were removed.
- And at Knitting, these external links were removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- On Origami, they removed links showing Robert J. Lang talking about and performing Origami folding despite him being one of the worlds leading theorists on Origami. On Knitting, they removed links to the trade associated for knitting yarn manufacturers which is a common link on a subject, a link to the UIllinois LibGuide that has librarian curated links to in-depth research material about knitting, and all the categories and authority control templates. They did go back and add back the categories it but the first swipe shows carelessness. Everytime I see Dronebogus at ANI, it seems to be for taking some guideline and going hard core enforcing it without any nuance or care. @Floquenbeam: summed it up best: "I'm pretty tired of Dronebogus wandering around hunting for stuff to be outraged about." spryde | talk 20:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have zero useful opinions on this particular issue, but since at least one person has said "per Floquenbeam", I do want to make sure it's clear that I was talking about much different behavior, a long while ago. This isn't really that. Just a clarification, not a defense of whatever is happening here. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Understood and apologies if I made it appear you were commenting on this behavior. I was wondering where I saw DB's name before and I finally put two and two together with the previous XFD discussion and other ANI discussions. I saw your quote and thought, at least in my mind, applied to this situation and I could not state it better. spryde | talk 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sp: Editing some random topic and getting into an argument is not “wandering around looking for something to be outraged about”. It’s a fundamental part of editing Misplaced Pages. I prune external links pretty regularly and without controversy. I was not wading into some obviously contentious issue looking for trouble. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have zero useful opinions on this particular issue, but since at least one person has said "per Floquenbeam", I do want to make sure it's clear that I was talking about much different behavior, a long while ago. This isn't really that. Just a clarification, not a defense of whatever is happening here. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- These should be reverted, per sp and especially Floquenbeam's comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- In Links to be considered, WP:ELMAYBE lists
Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
Dronebogus thinks that line is "oxymoronic to the point of uselessness" and doesn't "buy that guidance". Dronebogus thinks external links need to be "notable" (whatever that means). It isn't unusual for an editor to disagree with some bit of guidance on the project, but the productive approach is to try to get consensus to modify the guidance, not to make up their own version and apply it despite objections. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)- Notable means WP:NOTABLE. What else? Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- In Links to be considered, WP:ELMAYBE lists
- This looks like a content issue that should be addressed on the talk-pages of the respective articles. If I've followed correctly, I believe the timeline is:
- Jan 8: Dronebogus removed EL on Pitman article with the comment
how about none
- Jan 10: JD Gale reverted with no edit description. Dronebogus then removed them again with the edit description
Reverted good faith edits by JD Gale (talk): No rationale provided for restoring a huge link farm of seemingly WP:OWNed personal opinion
- Jan 16: JD Gale opened a discussion on the article talk page.
- Jan 22: JD Gale made this comment referencing the Knitting and Origami pages. Dronebogus then removed the external links in those articles ( ).
- Jan 23: Dronebogus opened a discussion on the External links talk page asking for clarification. Around 7 hours later, JD Gale opens this ANI.
- Jan 8: Dronebogus removed EL on Pitman article with the comment
- As it stands, I'm just seeing a content dispute and a difference in interpretation of EL guidelines that is appropriately migrating to the EL talk page for clarification. Is there some context I'm missing here? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- These link removals strike me as extremely bad, in the sense that they are deliberately making an article less useful to readers as an educational resource, with apparently very little in the way of justification. This would seem in some sense to be a content dispute, but there is indeed a recurring issue where DB ends up at some noticeboard over pointlessly rude and aggressive behaviors, over the span of some years now. jp×g🗯️ 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Opening a thread on the external links talk page is at least a step towards wisdom, but frankly, if I am unclear on the purpose or meaning of a policy, I would not go around trying to enforce it by removing giant reams of stuff. jp×g🗯️ 04:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JPxG: I feel like every time this happens it’s someone criticizing me for doing the right thing a little too slowly. Dronebogus (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Opening a thread on the external links talk page is at least a step towards wisdom, but frankly, if I am unclear on the purpose or meaning of a policy, I would not go around trying to enforce it by removing giant reams of stuff. jp×g🗯️ 04:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am sorry I bulk removed the stuff on the origami and knitting pages. It was poor form in the midst of a content dispute. I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject. I personally don’t think this needed to escalate this far, especially since I received no talk page warning before ANI. It was a content dispute that got a little heated and I overstepped my reach on. I see nothing in my conduct here that would rise to the level of sanctioning when you take into account some established contributors are repeatedly allowed to walk back on grossly insulting people and generally dancing on the limits of acceptable conduct. Dronebogus (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject." the problem here is that when you were told the official guidelines on external links like Schazjmd laid out above, you completely disregarded them and went by what you think the guidelines should be to you. It's one thing if you don't like the guidelines, that's perfectly fine, but to blow them off the way you did just isn't on. Every Misplaced Pages editor (probably) has policies/guidelines they don't like, but they don't get to violate them just because they don't like them. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then what is WP:IAR? Because it’s been evoked both ways in this argument, and it seems like it’s only valid if it’s against me. There are no rules on what can be an EL, except when there are, and those rules are Dronebogus cannot remove any of them. Dronebogus (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dronebogus, you know damn well that IAR is only applied in really rare extenuating circumstances that this obviously doesn't fall under. IAR also isn't a "get out of following policies and guidelines" card either. Someone can't e.g. change the British spelling of colour/armour/etc. to the American spelling all willy-nilly and shout IAR in their defense, because that's disruptive. (Not equating this to that, but am using this as an illustration). And the latter is a complete strawman. You were told the guidelines on external links and brushed them off. Removing irrelevant links is one thing, removing relevant informational links is another, and relevant informational links are permitted by the current EL guidelines. Now you may argue if the latter are important enough in the article to keep, that's fine, but those are debates for the individual article talk pages. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don’t “know damn well”, because that’s not what the WP:IAR page says. Am I just supposed to infer this from some mass of case law that is not discussed there? In any case I am no longer doing it, I acknowledged that some of my edits were sloppy, I took it to the talk page of the policy, is there something else I need to do? I apologize for being somewhat curt but I personally think that JD Gale isn’t entirely in the right either by taking this directly to ANI instead of discussing it on my talk page. I don’t know if they know this but “summoning” someone to ANI is generally regarded as “taking the kid gloves off” at best and vexatious hostility at worst. As with most of these situations I’d like to let it drop and actually discuss the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:External links like I was attempting to do. Dronebogus (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:IAR relates to edits directed to improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. Removing useful ELs serves neither purpose. Narky Blert (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not everyone considers them useful. I don’t agree with the maximalist school of thought that’s apparently prevalent on Wikimedia— the idea that adding is the greatest good and removing is at best a necessary evil, or that WP:BOLD only applies to adding content. If the overwhelming consensus is that what I just said is, to some extent, true, then it should be an official guideline. But this is a grey area, which should be settled by discussion rather than yelling at me that I broke a deliberately vague rule. Once again, I acknowledge removing a bunch of links in the middle of a content dispute about removing a bunch of links is not good, and I wouldn’t have edit warred it back after it was inevitably reverted. But you can’t sanction me for having a different definition of “useful” than an apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of. Dronebogus (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
n apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of
.- You're aware of it now. Narky Blert (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, after the fact. Dronebogus (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not everyone considers them useful. I don’t agree with the maximalist school of thought that’s apparently prevalent on Wikimedia— the idea that adding is the greatest good and removing is at best a necessary evil, or that WP:BOLD only applies to adding content. If the overwhelming consensus is that what I just said is, to some extent, true, then it should be an official guideline. But this is a grey area, which should be settled by discussion rather than yelling at me that I broke a deliberately vague rule. Once again, I acknowledge removing a bunch of links in the middle of a content dispute about removing a bunch of links is not good, and I wouldn’t have edit warred it back after it was inevitably reverted. But you can’t sanction me for having a different definition of “useful” than an apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of. Dronebogus (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:IAR relates to edits directed to improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. Removing useful ELs serves neither purpose. Narky Blert (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don’t “know damn well”, because that’s not what the WP:IAR page says. Am I just supposed to infer this from some mass of case law that is not discussed there? In any case I am no longer doing it, I acknowledged that some of my edits were sloppy, I took it to the talk page of the policy, is there something else I need to do? I apologize for being somewhat curt but I personally think that JD Gale isn’t entirely in the right either by taking this directly to ANI instead of discussing it on my talk page. I don’t know if they know this but “summoning” someone to ANI is generally regarded as “taking the kid gloves off” at best and vexatious hostility at worst. As with most of these situations I’d like to let it drop and actually discuss the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:External links like I was attempting to do. Dronebogus (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dronebogus, you know damn well that IAR is only applied in really rare extenuating circumstances that this obviously doesn't fall under. IAR also isn't a "get out of following policies and guidelines" card either. Someone can't e.g. change the British spelling of colour/armour/etc. to the American spelling all willy-nilly and shout IAR in their defense, because that's disruptive. (Not equating this to that, but am using this as an illustration). And the latter is a complete strawman. You were told the guidelines on external links and brushed them off. Removing irrelevant links is one thing, removing relevant informational links is another, and relevant informational links are permitted by the current EL guidelines. Now you may argue if the latter are important enough in the article to keep, that's fine, but those are debates for the individual article talk pages. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then what is WP:IAR? Because it’s been evoked both ways in this argument, and it seems like it’s only valid if it’s against me. There are no rules on what can be an EL, except when there are, and those rules are Dronebogus cannot remove any of them. Dronebogus (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, when making similar edits across multiple articles it's a good idea to stop or slow down when someone raises an objection in order to avoid WP:FAIT problems. Edits made across a large number of articles are more difficult to reverse, so editors are generally expected to be more receptive to objections and more willing to discuss them if one comes up. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I probably should have stopped sooner. But I only made two similar edits after the objection, which is not hard to reverse. This level of escalation would have made more sense if I had just kept going and going. Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject." the problem here is that when you were told the official guidelines on external links like Schazjmd laid out above, you completely disregarded them and went by what you think the guidelines should be to you. It's one thing if you don't like the guidelines, that's perfectly fine, but to blow them off the way you did just isn't on. Every Misplaced Pages editor (probably) has policies/guidelines they don't like, but they don't get to violate them just because they don't like them. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I wonder what the supposed improvement is from removing the link to The Dark Side of the White Lady, a documentary by Patricio Henríquez on the website of the National Film Board of Canada about the ship from the article Chilean barquentine Esmeralda. Your incorrect arguments about the links needing to be notable clearly don't apply here.
Similarly, under the guise of pruning a "link farm" from two to one entries, you removed an interview that Daniel C. Tsang had on KUCI radio from Bill Andriette. No idea either why you e.g. removed from Schoolly D the link to his entry on Lambiek#Comiclopedia, a reliable source used extensively on enwiki and here presenting an aspect otherwise not touched upon in the article. It looks as if your external links mission has done more harm than good, even in those cases where no one objected so far. Fram (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first two would be much better used as sources. The link to White Lady would be much better used on the article about that movie. The Comicpedia one was a mistake and I’ve restored it. Keeping these arbitrary links tacked on to the page does not improve the article. Using the information in them would. I stand by these as legitimate, non-disruptive edits even if you disagree with them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- How does removing a link to a good source improve an article? You didn’t cite it, you just erased it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s not erased, it’s in the history. But I’m salvaging some of the links right now and will try to do this in the future before deleting them. I am more than willing to learn from my mistakes; it’s just that whenever I end up at ANI I assume it’s because someone wants me removed from the project, or otherwise punished, because that’s just what ANI is used for. Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- How does removing a link to a good source improve an article? You didn’t cite it, you just erased it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
To avoid the need for another section in the near future: please don't switch now to removing information from articles because it is already in the infobox... Fram (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
This seems more like a content dispute, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Adillia
INTERACTION BAN Aidillia and D.18th are hereby banned from interacting with each other, everywhere on Misplaced Pages, subject to the standard exceptions. They are also indefinitely banned from editing in the File: namespace and are partially blocked. For clarity: the filespace restriction is narrowly construed and does not extend to edits related to images and media in other namespaces. Violations of the first restriction may be enforced by any administrator with escalating blocks and may lead to further sanctions per WP:RECIDIVISM. This may be considered an involved close since I commented below, but these two restrictions have been separately proposed three different times throughout this ongoing incident, and there has been unanimous support each time and overall, therefore I see no way that any competent closer would not reach the same conclusion.-- Ivanvector (/Edits) 12:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 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)
- 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
Resumption
I've unarchived this because they're resumed edit warring with each other at File:Study_Group_(TV_series)_poster.png/File:Study_Group poster.png. Repeating my comment from above to give it more attention: I propose that D.18th and Aidillia are banned from interacting with each other. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
_poster.png){kind=link}
- * Pppery *, I think you should notify both editors of your action on ANI, especially as this discussion might have an impact on them. Liz 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both files were created by Aidillia and I don't know why they need to do that. I uploaded a new version at
Study Group poster.pngbut then I was reverted without a valid reason then Aidillia uploaded a redundant file so they'll have an WP:OWNERSHIP.Another file they keep messing up is File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets WP:IMAGERES, I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Oh again? WP:OWNERSHIP? I left you a valid reason in the file! or maybe you don't want to understand it! As I already did some research, maybe it's considered as the main poster, as the main trailer is already out; (because there are no reliable sources that say it's the main poster) that's why I reverted it back after that. But I want to create a new file instead of renaming it. You're the one who ignore my WP:GOODFAITH again and again over a small thing. Aidillia 08:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I don't know why they uploaded the preferred size they like when the ones I uploaded is clearly meets WP:IMAGERES, I reverted it then they reverted again to their preferred size. The way they behave is showing WP:IDHT."
- That situation is the situation that u did to me before!
- I also meets WP:IMAGERES! But u keep reverting my edits!? What is your PROBLEM? Aidillia 10:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you that interested in being engaged in WP:EDITWAR over a ridiculous thing? You've been here for many years, but why are you wasting your time warring over ridiculous things? Please stop making it complicated. Just ignore it but why are you fight it until the end? I've been blocked by you twice. What's your problem? Aidillia 10:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please also stop your behaviour, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, like what u did to someone on File:Light Shop poster.png. Stop uploading for your prefered version! It's so unnecessary. Aidillia 10:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- support, but also a p-block from file space might be needed since both seem to be using it as a trophy case. Star Mississippi 13:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support two-way IBAN for now. As a bystander, this situation has devolved into a prolonged WP:BATTLEGROUND, possibly including WP:HOUNDING, with increasingly absurd interactions between both parties beyond just edit warring on filespace, including nominating each other's "creations" for deletion which seems like a retaliatory behaviour. Furthermore, I fail to understand the obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft as both parties exhibited in their contributions when neither constitutes ownership or a noteworthy achievement on Misplaced Pages. If a two-way IBAN is ineffective, this effectively constitutes WP:DISRUPTIVE and possibly WP:NOTHERE hence I believe that a block should be enforced against the first party to violate the ban. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support and p-block from file space. I think the p-block is the more important part of this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problems aren't limited to file space. See Close Your Eyes (group). * Pppery * it has begun... 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support and p-block from file space. I think the p-block is the more important part of this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Resumption again
This appears to be a resumption of disruptive behavior, this time occurring on draftspace. I believe there is a potential case of HOUNDING by Aidillia against D.18th. Furthermore, this ownership and uncollaborative behavior, which I previously described as an "obsession with being the first to create and/or update an article or file or draft
" is evident once again. Given this is the third instance here on this topic, could we finally have some conclusions and actions taken? Also noting that the previous discussion was auto-archived due to inactivity without official administrative actions pertaining to IBAN being logged into WP:EDRC.
On Draft:Please Stop Drinking/Draft:Please Quit Drinking.
- 3:07 – @D.18th created Draft:Please Stop Drinking pointing to Gong Myung.
- 4:22 – @Aidillia created Draft:Please Quit Drinking pointing to the same mainspace.
- 4:22 – Aidillia converted their draft to a skeleton outline.
- 4:34 – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft.
- 4:49 – D.18th reverted the changes stating "
This is the literal translation of the Korean title
". - 4:51 – Aidillia posted onto D.18th's talk page asking to D.18th's to "
delete Draft:Please Stop Drinking
" so that they could move their created draft. - 11:10 – Aidillia cut-paste the content (permalink) from their draft to D.18th's draft.
- 11:11 – Aidillia moved D.18th's draft to User:Aidillia/Please Stop Drinking.
- 12:08 – Aidillia moved their draft to Draft:Please Stop Drinking.
On Draft:Typhoon Company/Draft:Typhoon Boss
- 3:48 – D.18th created Draft:Typhoon Company pointing to List of programs broadcast by tvN (South Korean TV channel).
- 3:53 – Aidillia created Draft:Typhoon Boss with content of "
Typhoon Boss
". - 3:55 – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft.
- 3:58 – D.18th reverted Aidillia changes.
- 3:59 – Aidillia reverted D.18th changes.
- 4:03 – Aidillia redirect their draft to D.18th's draft.
- 4:04 – Aidillia cut-paste the content (permalink) from their draft to D.18th's draft.
- 4:14 – D.18th overwrited the cut-paste content from their draft.
- 4:17 – Aidillia added external link with edit summary of "
Even HanCinema link also said it is Typhoon Boss
". - 4:56 – Aidillia added redirect templates to their draft with edit summary of "
sopspspwpwppwpwpwpwppwpwpeppeowoow
".
— Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems like Aidillia is intentionally harassing D18 trying to antagonize them into another incident. This shows a pattern of resorting to weird tactics in order to be the “first” to create something.
- This discussion has been sitting on ANI for weeks with no real measures being taken. An interaction ban needs to be enacted ASAP, with possibly an additional block on page creation and/or page moves if this behaviour is seen to be chronic. RachelTensions (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both Aidillia and D18 upload a new copy of any file I upload, for no good reason. 👎 Muatsem90 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your point? •Cyberwolf•talk? 21:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both Aidillia and D18 upload a new copy of any file I upload, for no good reason. 👎 Muatsem90 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both editors site-blocked for one week for clear escalation and disruption on many pages. I agree that they should be two-way interaction banned once their blocks expire, and also suggest they be banned from creating duplicates of any other users' drafts. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good block, but also there’s a case to be made for an INDEF. Both editors are a time sink and net negative beyond the incessant sniping. Star Mississippi 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I see some of the net negative editing diffs I looked through d18s contributed other than the edit warring it seemed fine mostly •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unlikely, both are productive editors and there’s no evidence showing this has spread further than issues with each other. Could’ve been avoided with an IBAN. RachelTensions (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- IMO logging their IBANs in WP:EDRC before their 1-week blocks expire is sufficient for now. I don't believe their contributions are entirely unproductive, excluding their interactions with each other. An indefinite block may be considered if the IBAN proves to be ineffective, which we can revisit at that time. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good block, but also there’s a case to be made for an INDEF. Both editors are a time sink and net negative beyond the incessant sniping. Star Mississippi 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- IBAN OMG. If ever there was a case for an iban, this is it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I hadn't been closely following this since stumbling onto the upload war at File:Love Scout poster.png (I think after actioning a speedy deletion request on the image it replaced?), but I was struck even then by how utterly lame it was on both users' parts. Cursory skim through the above diffs hasn't done a thing to convince me otherwise. —Cryptic 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support IBAN and indef ban of both editors from filespace to avoid continued disruption there. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Juice and ye 999
TPA-b-gon applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Juice and ye 999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone please revoke TPA? Thanks. C F A 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.37.47.76.95 - personal attacks
IP account blocked for a week. Liz 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
37.47.76.95 (talk · contribs) - self-explanatory from this. Whoever they are, they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Departure– (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll add I'm active in a few sockpuppet investigations and a few semi-controversial discussions especiallly around the California fires and Gulf of Mexico so it wouldn't shock me too much if this was a sock or LOUT because this is clearly targeted towards me in particular. Maybe a CU will be needed if this continues. Departure– (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Mr. Accuracy Specialist
Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This week-old account has a talk page filled with warnings (mostly deleted). Some of the warnings include:
- User:Iiii I I I warning here about using AI chatbot.
- Me warning about unsourced content.
Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like:
I have asked three times for specific details about an edit----but was ignored, while this editor continued their mostly error-filled editing. This may be a user with limited English, using AI. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support a temp block warning him in several different languages (my gripe when dealing with users like this) if he continues after the first block an indef block would suffice
Off topic but user talk:Iiii I I I is straight gold I’m gagging lol •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) - To explain my warning a little, I think Mr. Accuracy Specialist is using AI because of edits like one, two, three – the links have the URL parameter
?utm_source=chatgpt.comand the cited websites do not back up what was written. He has also made suspiciously well written, but unsourced, edits to sea snails that are likely LLMs: four, five, six. - I was actually debating reporting Mr. Accuracy Specialist to SPI a few days earlier because I thought he was a sockpuppet of 202.57.44.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but I held off because I wasn't sure about it. The IP was previously reported at this ANI post for making edits to Philippine film articles. User:Borgenland mentions there is possible COI - maybe they would like to provide input here? Here's the gist of what I was going to write:
- 202.57.44.130 makes tens of edits to articles related to GMA Pictures in a short period of time, then stops at 13:35, January 18, 2025 (UTC) and has not edited again as of this moment.
- Mr. Accuracy Specialist is created five hours later, then continues the same pattern of making dozens of edits in short bursts.
- After a hundred minor edits (to build credibility?), Mr. Accuracy Specialist also starts to edit the same articles related to GMA Pictures.
- On Uninvited (2024 film) the two accounts have made identical changes: first by IP, then by user.
- On List of films produced and released by GMA Pictures the two accounts have made large, partly unreferenced additions: by IP, then by user.
- 202.57.44.130 makes tens of edits to articles related to GMA Pictures in a short period of time, then stops at 13:35, January 18, 2025 (UTC) and has not edited again as of this moment.
- Since January 19 there's been no overlap, which is why I'm not confident about the connection. Iiii I I I (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just noticed 139.135.241.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also made a dozen edits to List of films produced and released by GMA Pictures with edit summaries very similar to 202.57.44.130. For example, the same threats: this vs. this.
- See also the Interaction Timeline, where there is lots of overlap. Iiii I I I (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, "stops editing as an IP and makes an account" isn't sockpuppetry, it's what we ideally want editors to do. And IPs are dynamic, so it's not surprising two diffferent IPs are the same user.- The Bushranger One ping only 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comment is the type of Tongue-in-cheek remark that I hope contains a core of truth. Any editor who voluntarily chooses a boastful, arrogant username such as Mr. Accuracy Specialist ought to be held to an exceptionally high standard of conduct starting with their very first edit. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
System gaming by NandivadaHungama
No ECR for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe NandivadaHungama (talk · contribs · count) is WP:Gaming the system per WP:PGAME by editing their user page 500 times and thus should have extended-confirmed rights removed.--A09|(talk) 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
User:ThePurgatori
In summary: user makes many problematic edits to many articles with no source and edit summary, continues doing so despite being warned multiple times, and refuses to respond to complaints nor engage in discussion.
Since October 2024, User:ThePurgatori has been (and is still) unilaterally adding Category:Possible dwarf planets (as well as including mentions of "possible dwarf planet" in lede sentences and "p-DP" in infoboxes) to an alarmingly high number (over 300!) of trans-Neptunian object (TNO) articles, even those which are obviously too small to qualify as a dwarf planet or have never been called a possible dwarf planet in the scientific literature see this example. For every single one of their edits, they gave no edit summary justifying their category additions. From what I've seen with ThePurgatori's edits, they either don't give a source for the "possible dwarf planet" category or they cite only Mike Brown's list of dwarf planets, which I see as unreliable and POV-pushing for the reasons I've given here.
Adjacent to mass-categorizing TNO articles, ThePurgatori has also been mass-adding TNOs to Template:Dwarf planets and transcluding that template to TNO articles they have mass-categorized with Category:Possible dwarf planets. The template includes a comment that explicitly says that "Only those TNOs whose absolute magnitudes ≤ +4.3, are not Haumeids, and have diameter ≥ 400 km should be included in this template." ThePurgatori ignored this comment and added numerous objects to the template such as 54598 Bienor, which obviously not over 400 km in diameter. Furthermore, they arbitrarily changed the absolute magnitude (H) limit from +4.3 to +5.5 in this edit with no justification given. ThePurgatori's edits to Template:Dwarf planets have since been reverted, but the template is still inappropriately transcluded to many TNO articles.
Outside of mass-editing articles, ThePurgatori has been (and is still) frequently making unreferenced additions to Resonant trans-Neptunian object, List of possible dwarf planets, and multiple lists of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects.
- For Resonant trans-Neptunian object, ThePurgatori has (and are still doing) repeatedly added TNOs to resonances without a source---some of their additions turn out to be contradictory to established sources stated in the article (Deep Ecliptic Survey), as User:Renerpho as stated in his warning on ThePurgatori's talk page. ThePurgatori never replied to Renerpho's warning and continued adding unreferenced (and incorrect) additions to Resonant trans-Neptunian object like in this edit today. In that particular edit, ThePurgatori added (471288) 2011 GM27 to the article. Looking at the edit history of that particular entry, I see that they have changed (471288) 2011 GM27's orbital class from "classical" to "4:7 resonant?" (again, no edit summary and no reason given), seemingly citing Johnston's archive (which is not the Deep Ecliptic Survey source specified in the Resonant trans-Neptunian object article). The reference to Johnston's archive in that edit links to the wrong page, but they intended to link to Johnston's list of TNOs which makes the "4:7 resonant?" claim. However, that claim is not reliable; the accepted reputable source (Deep Ecliptic Survey) has simulated 2011 GM27's orbit and states that it is not 4:7 resonant. Renerpho has warned ThePurgatori about this again; no response from ThePurgatori.
- For List of possible dwarf planets, ThePurgatori has also made numerous unreferenced additions (now reverted). In this edit where they added TNOs to the "Likeliest dwarf planets" which includes TNOs with *only* measured diameters published in scientific literature, ThePurgatori entirely missed that point and includes unmeasured TNOs with guesstimated diameters and fabricates error bars. No edit summary and no source given.
- For lists of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects (split up by year), ThePurgatori is changing the diameter values of TNOs in each list without explanation or source for how they got these numbers. They also link their created articles in these lists. To give an example, here.
I've notified ThePurgatori about my concerns about their edits on their talk page and asked them to stop their edits until they respond to my concerns. They did not respond, but did show some compliance by reverting some of their dwarf planet-categorized TNOs following my first request. For some of their reverts, they did include an edit summary too (for example, "1997 RT5 is not a dwarf planet. A size of 205 km is too small LMAO"), but never gave any meaningful explanation to why they added that category in the first place. I asked ThePurgatori on their talk page to respond again, several more times. Also no response, and by the time I posted my third comment to their talk page on 23:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC), ThePurgatori had already moved on from removing Category:Possible dwarf planets from TNO articles and continued editing numerous TNO articles, keeping the Category:Possible dwarf planets category I was complaining about (like in this edit of 420356 Praamzius, a TNO that I mentioned as an example of an object that has never been called a dwarf planet in the scientific literature in my message in ThePurgatori's talk page). And after I explained to them what TNOs to not categorize as "possible dwarf planets", they happened to revert one of my edits arguing that a particular object isn't a dwarf planet, without explanation.
I also notified ThePurgatori and asked them to comment in two talk page discussions: Talk:List of possible dwarf planets questioning the (un)reliability of the list website ThePurgatori has used to justify their dwarf planet claims, and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy discussing how the "possible dwarf planet category" should be applied. No response from ThePurgatori either. Just today (at 19:14, 23 January 2025 UTC), ThePurgatori has received two warnings on their talk page from User:Renerpho and User:ArkHyena, both complaining about ThePurgatori's unreferenced edits. No response, and ThePurgatori continues making said unreferenced edits after their warnings.
When I first encountered this user, I thought prodding them multiple times via talk page would get them to do something to address their problematic edits, but at this point it's become a futile waste of time. Frankly, it's very frustrating. I've been hesitant about going to WP:ANI over this since I felt that would be going too far, but it's all I can do now.
I am inviting @ThePurgatori:, the subject of this complaint, and @Renerpho and ArkHyena: who have also been dealing with this user. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tag, Nrco0e. I was reverting some of ThePurgatori's early changes to Resonant trans-Neptunian object, and although I got no reply to my message on their talk page, the next few changes they made there seemed to comply with what I told them. I then stopped checking, but I am seeing now that they just seem to ignore it in their latest edits. The list of resonant objects on that page should be handled with care, as such data becomes basically useless once you start mixing different sources. Resonances need to be confirmed computationally, and Buie is the only one who does that reliably. I'll have a look at a couple of the recent changes. It may be best to just reset that article to what it looked like a few weeks ago. Which is a great way to waste both my time, and theirs! :-(
- @ThePurgatori: If you read this, please start communicating now! It's great that you want to work on those articles, but if you don't interact with other users, chances are you'll continue causing a mess! Renerpho (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding my suggestion to roll back Resonant trans-Neptunian object, that already happened shortly before I wrote that comment, by ArkHyena (reverting 29 edits spanning about a month). ThePurgatori has since edited the article twice, although I checked that particular addition and it is not problematic, following the standard reference (Buie) we have specified. Either they got lucky, or they've noticed the complaints. Renerpho (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anyway you can tl;dr this? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- ThePurgatori continues to edit astronomy-related articles, and even though they've been warned that their edits are not constructive and against consensus, they remain unresponsive and continue to cause a mess. Renerpho (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am tagging Kwamikagami, who has been involved in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Category:Possible dwarf planets & Template:Dwarf planets, and who has just removed that category from a lot of articles. -- Maybe you have some insights into how to best approach this? Renerpho (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- First, let's splash a scary-looking warning template on their talk page. If they still don't engage, I'd give them a warning block of a few days to really get their attention, leaving them with the ability to respond on talk pages . Once/if they engage, maybe the problems can be resolved. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and gave them another warning. Renerpho (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- First, let's splash a scary-looking warning template on their talk page. If they still don't engage, I'd give them a warning block of a few days to really get their attention, leaving them with the ability to respond on talk pages . Once/if they engage, maybe the problems can be resolved. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am tagging Kwamikagami, who has been involved in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Category:Possible dwarf planets & Template:Dwarf planets, and who has just removed that category from a lot of articles. -- Maybe you have some insights into how to best approach this? Renerpho (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- ThePurgatori continues to edit astronomy-related articles, and even though they've been warned that their edits are not constructive and against consensus, they remain unresponsive and continue to cause a mess. Renerpho (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It should be noted that there is a major ongoing discussion at WP:SPACE's talk page over how to handle candidate dwarf planets here. ThePurgatori has been directed to participate in the discussion by Nrco0e, though they have yet to participate. Specifics aside, it was agreed to state on Category:Possible dwarf planets that objects included were >700 km in diameter; soon after, ThePurgatori changed the statement to say 600 km with little explanation. It appears that ThePurgatori is intent on imposing a standard across astronomy articles that was not agreed upon by other users, despite several attempts at communicating with them. I am not sure what measures should be taken to resolve this, but this behavior is not constructive. ArkHyena (it/its) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- In their edits to List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects: 2010 from today, they've not only changed the diameters without sufficient explanation (as already pointed out), but have also changed the object count in a strange way. The article's source (a combination of and ) lists 39 objects in that category. They are saying in the article lede that there are 38. Their list includes 40. This may be an honest mistake, but I am getting tired of trying to clean up behind them. We do require some WP:COMPETENCE. Renerpho (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- The diameters in List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects: 2001 have also been changed in 3 edits since 16 January, without an edit summary (similarly to the case of the 2010 list already mentioned), and I cannot follow where their numbers come from. Renerpho (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't want to beat a dead horse, but they have been blocked on the Spanish Misplaced Pages for sockpuppetry. Not sure how relevant that is for us. Renerpho (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have just reverted 3 edits by ThePurgatori from 24 January 2025, unexplained change of a diameter without edit summary. Renerpho (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
My evolution
Since 10/01/2024, i have been getting ideas to add the Category:Possible dwarf planets to a high number of TNOs, even those like 42355 whose diameters are below 300 km, i accidentally do it, I'm very sorry.
Adding the ones in Michael E. Brown list is now getting so much.
I also have done additional unreferenced words into Resonant trans-Neptunian object, and List of possible dwarf planets:
In resonant trans-Neptunian object, i accidentally have make edits like putting 2014 HZ199 into the resonance, which is unreferenced, the DES has secured that this objects orbit is not resonant.
In List of possible dwarf planets, i accidentally have make edits without reference that is, adding (15789) 1993 SC to the main table of the likeliest dwarf planets topic, and adding some TNOs that are guesstimates by Michael E. Brown to the table which is only for TNOs with diameters published in scientific literature.
I'm sorry, i will start making referenced edits and give an edit summary, please give me chances, don't sanction me ThePurgatori (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, ThePurgatori!
- Thank you for responding. The most important thing is that you continue to communicate with other users. As long as you do that, chances are we will get along well, and your contributions become helpful (rather than having to be reverted).
- It is good to see that you recognize the mistakes you have made. If you need guidance about how to do things, feel free to ask (you can just ping me if you want, or ask on talk pages; just stay responsive). I suggest that you put your work on Category:Possible dwarf planets aside for the moment, and discuss the ideas you have about it on its talk page.
- If you want to return to Resonant trans-Neptunian object and start adding objects based on the Buie reference, you are welcome. Renerpho (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive editor won't stop
Cbls1911 (talk · contribs · count) has made numerous disruptive edits to US political pages. I have reverted a few but there are too many. Could someone please look into their contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktkvtsh (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry. I forgot to sign it. Was typing in a rush. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Ktkvtsh. When you post a complaint on a noticeboard, you have to provide diffs/edits that show examples of what the problem is. If editors have to go hunting to find out what you are referring to, it's unlikely that this post will get a response. You have to present evidence to support your claim that there is disruptive editing going on. Liz 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cbls1911 appears to be changing ordinal indicators to incorrect forms, such as 31st to 31th, even after being warned. Not blocking yet, but I likely will if they continue with this. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have reviewed about a dozen of their recent edits. I agree that the editor appears to be unfamilar with the quirky aspects of ordinal numbers in English. Also, I noticed that they changed the well-known (in the US) campaign name "Obama for America" to "Obama for President", which was not the name that campaign gave itself, but is certainly plausible. I think the editor is acting in good faith but may lack the knowledge and the language skills to edit productively in the area of US politics. So, at the very least, I think that Cbls1911 should be advised to proceed more cautiously. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, it seems to be good faith editing and the added wikilinks seem helpful. Based on this edit, possibly a native Chinese speaker, which would explain the unfamiliarity with ordinals. CMD (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have reviewed about a dozen of their recent edits. I agree that the editor appears to be unfamilar with the quirky aspects of ordinal numbers in English. Also, I noticed that they changed the well-known (in the US) campaign name "Obama for America" to "Obama for President", which was not the name that campaign gave itself, but is certainly plausible. I think the editor is acting in good faith but may lack the knowledge and the language skills to edit productively in the area of US politics. So, at the very least, I think that Cbls1911 should be advised to proceed more cautiously. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cbls1911 appears to be changing ordinal indicators to incorrect forms, such as 31st to 31th, even after being warned. Not blocking yet, but I likely will if they continue with this. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Ktkvtsh. When you post a complaint on a noticeboard, you have to provide diffs/edits that show examples of what the problem is. If editors have to go hunting to find out what you are referring to, it's unlikely that this post will get a response. You have to present evidence to support your claim that there is disruptive editing going on. Liz 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 179.96.218.28
179.96.218.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week. This is more tricky than the /64 below because this IP has not been active for long and has not previously been blocked. The two cases seem very similar and I suspect I have seen others with the same style. Is there an LTA with this approach? Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:6C60:39F0:B0D0:0:0:0:0/64
2600:6C60:39F0:B0D0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings and behaviour continued after a 72h block on January 19. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:NPA and WP:EW/WP:3RR violations and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by User:DisneyEditor1
I was holding off on filing some type of report until they decided to try to force their changes again on any of the articles, but their recent comment on their talk page is definitely casting WP:ASPERSIONS on Geraldo Perez, accusing him of editing logged out, as seen here, which was the final straw for me. They already have a plethora of warnings on their talk page for a few different things, and they've only been here since Tuesday and have already accrued that many warnings in their 59 edits, as of writing this. They've made a personal attack against Geraldo here. Granted, it's not the worst one in the world, but it's still a personal attack nonetheless. They have edit warred across multiple articles, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. At this point, a block or some other kind of sanction definitely seems appropriate, in my opinion. Amaury • 09:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would be ScottSullivanTV (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both original editor & sock have bee indeffed. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive only editor Shashank Yedhuru
Shashank Yedhuru has been warned three times to not add or change content, without citing a reliable source but ignores warnings, does not respond to warnings and continues to vandalize pages like Pushpa 2 by changing boxoffice figures that are not backed by the sources. Since the third warning, Shashank Yedhuru made these disruptive edits again changing boxoffice figure, and this unsourced change. I did not think any more warnings is going to make any difference so brought it here to ANI. RangersRus (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean technically the citations in place don't support the status quo text either since this rather questionable source says 1800 crore, not 1830. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good catch. I fixed that just now but not before when the disruptive editor reverted one more time after this ANI report. RangersRus (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suggest trying not to WP:BITE a newbie too much. They're not being particularly communicative yet but they may not even know about their user talk page considering how few edits they have. @Shashank Yedhuru: I'll try a ping to get your attention. We do require changes be accompanied by reliable sources. Can you please advise if you have a source for your revised figures? Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- After this message, the 2 month old newbie Shashank Yedhuru made yet another revert back to unsourced changes and now crossed edit warring. I am very sure that Shashank Yedhuru got your ping and the ones before and is ignoring it. RangersRus (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suggest trying not to WP:BITE a newbie too much. They're not being particularly communicative yet but they may not even know about their user talk page considering how few edits they have. @Shashank Yedhuru: I'll try a ping to get your attention. We do require changes be accompanied by reliable sources. Can you please advise if you have a source for your revised figures? Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good catch. I fixed that just now but not before when the disruptive editor reverted one more time after this ANI report. RangersRus (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Il Qathar
Just a heads up... this user has been warned several times against engaging personal attacks, (see talk page) and has been previously blocked, (see block log) but it seems like they continue: Special:Diff/1271551336
User has only 346 edits but has already accumulated several warnings & a block due to personal attacks, so I'm not sure if this is an indication that this person just can't play nice or what. RachelTensions (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: