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

Revision as of 10:19, 25 June 2013 view sourceCzello (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers41,552 edits →Attempted outing of Edward Snowden: Question← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:36, 24 January 2025 view source Chipmunkdavis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers67,263 edits →Disruptive editor won't stop: 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>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|maxarchivesize = 700K		|maxarchivesize =800K
	|counter = 801		|counter = 1177
	|algo = old(36h)		|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
	}}<!--{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			}}
	|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			{{stack end}}
	|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchi
			<!--
	|format=%%i
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	|age=36
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	|index=no
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
	|archivenow=<nowiki>{{discussion top}},{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{archive top|,Template:Archive top</nowiki>
	|numberstart=756
	|minarchthreads= 1
	|minkeepthreads= 4
	|maxarchsize= 700000
	|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
	}}
	-----------------------------------------------------------
	New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
	----------------------------------------------------------
	As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
	Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
			== ] 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.
	----------------------------------------------------------
	--></noinclude>
			* was deleted for ]
	== Persistent edit stalking ==
			* on ] and ] grounds
	I have asked ] to stop stalking my edits, more than once:
			* on ] and ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* {{Diff|Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler|530739466|530685104|Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler#Infobox}}
	* ]
	* And in edit summaries and talk pages not logged
			*They've been warned about ] and .
	as have other editors (e.g. ] in the first link above and at ]; ]; ] at ]). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:
	* (newly created by me)		*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
	*
	* at ] - since deleted
	* at ] - since deleted
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	* (newly created by me)
	*
	*
	*
	* (newly created by another editor)
	*
	* <small>(diff added 18:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC))</small>
			*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
	and most recently, today: ).
			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.
	This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, ''in accordance with Arbcom rulings'' (]), on pain of escalating blocks. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at ]. ] (]) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ''ban'' her, don't you? ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	* I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	**All I am saying is that Pigsonthewing has made a '']'' case of ], which could result in a ban. I am not sure that Nikkimaria quite understands how serious this issues has become. After the ] incident, I think we need to wield the mop a little more. ] (]) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	***Rushing to wield the mop is just as bad, if not worse, than taking too long. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	* Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:
	:* ]
	:* ]
	:* ]
	:there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on ''any'' topic). — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. ] and ] are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at ]) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at ] - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example ], right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example ]). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. ] (]) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (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)
	::Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that ] has been ] with ]. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. ] (]) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: <s>And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts.</s> — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. ] ] 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@ Nikki: re: "''I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. ''" - I think that would go a ''LONG'' way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?
			::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)
	: Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 21:47, 5 June 2013 (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)
	:::Please see ''']''' and following discussions. In this case the wishes of the principle author ] were ''not'' respected by ] and Pigsonthewing. There are many other examples, but this was recent. It was provocative because of the high standard of this article, DYKs, the Wagner anniversary etc. --'']]'' 05:06, 7 June 2013 (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)
	::Gerda would be a bit trickier, as our interests overlap quite a bit - I've been doing quite a lot of work lately in expanding Bach cantata articles, and as she too has been working in this area, we already share authorship on a few of them (for example both of us contributed to ], recently on the main page). Your larger point about infoboxes, though, I think we might agree on. Andy has objected strongly to that reasoning, which has been part of the problem. ] (]) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (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)
	::I'm not on board with the notion that the principle author should be accorded this latitude. In fact, as I was formulating my response, I started with the notion that the answer was generally yes, but I didn't agree on the infobox, but as I considered other examples, I began to reject them. Maybe there are some examples, but none come to mind. One of the aspects of Misplaced Pages that is useful to readers, is that they know what to expect—there will be a lede, there will be references, there will be sections, it will be written in a certain style (not a first narrative, for example). While I wouldn't expect an article on a Bach Cantata to follow the same cookie cutter style as an article on a member of the 1927 Yankees, I would expect some similarity between structures of articles in the same category. Maybe we are not yet ready to resolve the infobox wars, but leaving the decision to the principle author is not a step in the right direction.--]] 13:34, 6 June 2013 (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)
	*I've interacted with Nikkimaria in the past and I can say from experience that although she seems to have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart, the zeal with which she accomplishes her missions can go over the top at times. Indeed her block log shows that the line between zeal and combativeness have become blurred for her a number of times in the past. While passion is an important part of what makes good editors great, if the same passion is directed into a negative channel by one of our trusted mop-wielders then the results can be quite unsettling for us mere mortals. Because this isn't the first (or even second) time that this issue of over-the-top passion has become an issue for Nikkimaria, I wonder whether something more formal than her promise to stop editing only those articles that Pigsonthewing has written would be a good idea. Nikkimaria is a valuable contributor here and it would be a shame to see her further tarred by this issue. I'd recommend that she avoid watching Pigsonthewings' edits altogether. There are so many more positive ways that an editor can contribute to Misplaced Pages and Nikkimaria surely has the passion to make great improvements elsewhere on the 'pedia. -] (]) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			* Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the ] policy. I propose and '''support''' a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating ], they gain that necessary understanding/competence. ] (]) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''SUPPORT''' ban from article creation. ] ] 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' article creation ban. ] (]) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*'''Comment:''' While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. ]. ] 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I saw this or an RFC/u re Nikki coming weeks ago and divorced myself from the inevitable wiki mess. But Andy posted on my talk and mentioned me above, so I will comment. Agreeing to avoid Andy is a start, but what about Gerda Arendt, and your infobox warring in general? Let's not forget your teamed edit warring over an entry in ]'s infobox, not mention numerous other articles that had infoboxes. Nikki clearly has an excessive zeal for infoboxes and IMHO should be banned from editing them until she learns that infoboxes serve a valid purpose and many, if not most, users, like them. That an admin is doing this is even more troubling. With that said, I again divorce myself from these proceedings. ] ] 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			:*:Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. ] (]) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*My 2 cents: Thank you, everyone, for taking this concern seriously. ] (]) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:: Oh without a doubt this is ''very'' serious Bearian, and I never meant to be dismissive of the situation. My own personal choice however is to "fix" things, rather than just toss them out. I think it's very ''VERY'' important to understand that .. for lack of a better word .. "stalking another contributor's edits" should be completely unacceptable. And by that I mean in the sense that any attempts to make another editor's time on wiki unpleasant should be quickly stopped. There are and have been accounts which were primarily disruptive, and to research those things is always acceptable. Now, rather than "demand" apologies, or some sort of submissive "I will comply" - I tend to favor a "how do we move forward in a way that's productive to the project" approach. (and I assume everyone here feels that moving forward in productive ways is a good thing). Nikki has offered one step in the right direction here in agreeing to avoid Andy's articles - good! The issue as far as Gerda may be a bit more complicated however. Since both edit in the same topic area (classical music), then they will obviously cross paths. From what I've seen there have been honest attempts on both sides to find a common ground, all in good faith. My suggestion would be that whoever gets to working on an article first be given the latitude to create or improve the article without any harassment. I have some further thoughts developing at the moment, but it may take some time for me to flesh them out. Either way, I think it's imperative that Nikkimaria stop researching what other editors are working on, and going to those pages to impose a particular preference. Nikki has done some amazing work from DYK to FA, and I'd hate to lose that. With that I will leave further commentary to the rest of the community. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 00:39, 6 June 2013 (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) ==
	I have been called to this scene. I assume in good faith that you, ], are as sincerely interested in Bach's works is as I am. However, I don't understand why you needed to change almost every infobox for them BEFORE the talk about the template, {{tl|infobox Bach composition}}, came to a conclusion, sometimes just hiding three lines of a list, sometimes (but not lately any more, thank you) doing so using {{tl|Collapsed infobox section begin}} which I don't accept as a compromise for articles I feel responsible for, as explained on your talk. I would like to get the planned article on Baroque instuments to Main space first and THEN adjust the infoboxes. (No reader has been hurt so far by an abbreviation he doesn't understand.) I trust that we can work it out, confessing that I sometimes thought that a series of reverts was a waste of time, - for those who want to understand what I mean, have a look at history and talk of ] (a work in progress). With less assuming good faith, it might have looked a lot like stalking. - I would like you and others to show more good faith toward ] whom I haven't seen "pushing" recently (see the above mentioned ] discussion), but helping (!) with {{tl|infobox opera}}, --] (]) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I've been on the fringes of this issue with the classical music infobox issue. I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate, nor a general editing ban. HOWEVEr, I do have a proposal: Seems to me that the best solution is to ask that Nikki simply NOT edit infoboxes where they exist and not to remove them where they have been placed by others. She can call actual factual infobox errors to the attention of other editors at the respective article talk pages if she sees them, and I see no reason that she cannot continue to discuss the general issue in appropriate fora (the project pages, for example, but not across a dozen different articles),. Thus, I think that a restriction on Nikki either editing or removing infoboxes would be appropriate, as she appears to have lost perspective on the issue. Nikki, is this something you could live with, at least for a while? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Hmm. This is a one-sided discussion with all the pro-boxers out in force, and those who have reservations about boxes absent. I only found it by accident. (The common non-specific title ''Persistent edit stalking'' minus ]’s name serves to obscure the discussion — ''assembled admins please note'').
			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)
	:In my experience, ] has been reasonable and considerably less aggressive than ] and ]. The latter have been developing new infoboxes and applying them to articles without notifying concerned editors. (In this connection, see for example ''']''' and ''']''').
			:Notifying other editors from the wider discussions {{Ping|PamD}}, {{Ping|Noswall59}}, {{Ping|Rupples}}, {{Ping|Crouch, Swale}}, {{Ping|KeithD}}, {{Ping|SchroCat}}, {{Ping|Tryptofish}}, {{Ping|Cremastra}} and {{Ping|Voice of Clam}}. If I missed anyone else sorry ] (]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of ], ], ] and now redirected ] and ]. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. ] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. ] (]) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
			:I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
			:I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
			:Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --] (]) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? ] (]/]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? ] (]) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::These are good points.
			:::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). {{u|KJP1}} provided a for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they ''understand'' source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. ]&nbsp;] 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements ''and'' that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::That's a great point, you're right, @]. ]&nbsp;] 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I responded to @] earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with ] ] and ]. Also conflict edit was not directed at @], there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. ] (]) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
			*:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
			The issues are ] and source integrity; ]; and the suggestion of ] while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.
			Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, ], which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises ] issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.
	:I was surprised that ] should make this kind of accusation against ], given that he consistently reverts my own edits (for example: , , , , ], , . As I observe ] and never complain here, I guess I'm an easy target. I am not sure what 'edit stalking' means in a WP context, but I assume it involves watching another editor's contribution list and then jumping in with an edit or reversion. Well, is anyone ''seriously'' suggesting that ] doesn't do this? '']]'' 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. ] (]) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I agree, for what it's worth. Pigsonthewing's behaviour with regard to infoboxes at ] has usually added nothing but bad vibes to many talk pages. ] (]) 04:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			:At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --] (]) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	Whenever I have noticed editor Nikkimaria's work, it has been very thoughtful and helpful. I think she deserves full backup here. It's Pigsonthewing who is the big Wiki-problem; he's an incredibly disruptive editor who wastes a vast amount of other editors' time through harassment, wiki-lawyering, and forum-shopping. This guy has been banned before, and it's really time now to make it permanent. ] (]) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (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)
	:I disagree. I have been called aggressive above, and disagree with that as well. Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles other than mine, such as ], and found the agreement of the principal author. No, I have not added an infobox on Bach, just suggested one. No, I have not even suggested to use one for ], knowing that the principal authors are against it, I only showed how could look, following an advice of Nikkimaria to have an infobox on the talk page if it was not wanted on the article. The way "vibes" are raised every time something that should be factual and simple (an infobox) is mentioned doesn't cease to surprise me. - What do you think of the compromise that in cases of a known conflict of interests on the topic, changes are not made to the infobox but discussed on the talk? This includes adding one and socalled "cleanup". - This was done for ], have a look at the ratio of facts and vibes. - If it had been respected for ] - , , , , , , , , ... ) - we would have wasted less time. Btw, the cantata title translates to "You will weep and wail" ;) --] (]) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (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)
	::I am repeatedly surprised by the passion that this infobox thing arouses in the classical music project. For someone who spends most of his Misplaced Pages time hanging around middle east disputes, where the fate of nations seems to hang on this or that word, this particular issue seems so, so bland. That said, the agreement achieved in the last major discussion on this seems to me a good one- that you should seek consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox. I have done this occasionally at articles about those extremely esoteric composers who interest me, gotten no feedback whatsoever, and then did what I wanted. The one who has consistently ignored this agreement is Pigsonthewing, who goes about planting infoboxes in articles as though they (the articles,I mean) were the octopus's garden. So I join (without a great deal of enthusiasm) Toccata's and Opus's assessment that it is Pigs, and not Maria, who deserves censure here. --] (]) 06:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			::::And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in ], ] and ]. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, we had an edit conflict, - see the above examples, - I think we agree on less passion on the topic, - censuring anybody seems not the right approach to achieve {{Unsigned|Gerda Arendt}}
			:::::@]. 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)
	:::Your statement that prior consent is needed to add an infobox to some articles (presumably classical music) puzzles me. I read both ] and ], both of which discuss article by article consensus, but neither mentions that there are different rules for classical music article. I'm not so sure that such special rules are a good idea, but if the community has decided that classical music articles follow different rules than every other articles, shouldn't this be prominently mentioned in the relevant guidelines?--]] 13:37, 7 June 2013 (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)
	Censure is indeed not the correct approach whilst one retains any hope that the contenders in a dispute are amenable to reason and consideration for others. Where one or both (or their partisans) show themselves not thus amenable - and in particular where there is a history of such implacability - what then? I put this question as dispassionately as possible. In this particular instance of pot-and-kettle, my inclination is towards the opinion of ] (]). However - Declaration of interest: I have lodged a quite separate - but not entirely spiritually unconnected - complaint about Mr. Mabbett ].--] (]) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (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.
	Is anyone going to look into what the origins of this editorial disagreement is? Its not uncommon for Andy to try and bully his changes through against well-established consensus with wikilawyering in order to avoid actual debate. Don't let him do it. Make him actually make his case and try to achieve consensus.] (]) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			:There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done.
	: How does that excuse, in any way, an editor following Andy around the project, including making plainly pointy edits to pages he's just created? It's one thing for the classical music project and its various affiliates to go around owning pages that its members were the primary contibutors to (it's not a ''good'' thing in any way whatsoever, but at least it's something everyone is used to by now), but it's quite another to go stalking new pages created by the Filthy Outsiders (Andy in particular) and enforcing that group's idiosyncracies on them as well. ] (]) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:: Wow. You've completely misrepresented everyone's complaints about Andy. We'd welcome being overruled by "filthy outsiders" (your strawman characterization, not mine) if someone of authority came in and made the ruling. But we play by the rules, we debate for a week or two, we reach a consensus and update the wikiproject style guide and then Andy ignores the consensus and pretends to be unaware of any debate that had occurred. We repeat the debate for another week, reach consensus again and again its ignored. Repeat again, etc. If you get angry and overreact, then Andy uses your overreaction against you. Its infuriating and extremely hard to assume good faith when interacting with him. I don't understand how debate and reaching consensus is considered "owning" while ignoring consensus and refusing to debate is not "owning", although we're used to it by now too. I don't know ] very well, if she overreacted way too far, then do what you have to do, but don't go around mischaracterizing people's complaints like you've just done. I thought admins at ANI were the supposed to be the voice of reason, but you guys are just as petty and snipey as any other editor.] (]) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: "Everyone's complaints about Andy" are not the issue here. I'm well aware of Andy's history on the project and of the various matters in which his behaviour is considered problematic. But as of right now, he's an editor in good standing on the project, and when he's going around making productive contributions to articles (including writing them from scratch) he should not be expected to have to continually look over his shoulder in case an editor holding a grudge is following him and systematically working to undo him. ] (]) 09:30, 8 June 2013 (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.
	===Convenience break===
	'''Comment''' I see a troubling tendency of editors lining up into "Andy's right" and "Nikkimaria's right" camps. That approach is rarely helpful, and rarely correct. I see a lot of links included; I've just started looking at them,and asking each about them. I've found less than exemplary behavior by both, so far. I see both trying to make the encyclopedia better, both with views on how that should be achieved, but the views clash. In some cases, they are on opposite sides of a debate which the community has failed to resolve, and unfortunately, have chosen to push their particular view if what is right. While it is undoubtedly more work than picking one to smack around, it would be better if we identified the open issues and attempted to resolve them.--]] 13:52, 7 June 2013 (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)
	My comment above was the results of looking at some of the edits identified by Andy, and observing some editorial decisions made by Nikkimaria. In some cases I agree, in some cases I did not. In no case did I feel that it was as clear cut as a violation of policy, rather it was an interpretation or a gray are where we differ. I've commented at her talk page, and see no need to revisit it here, partly because I reread Andy's report, and see no mention that he disagreed with any particular edit, the only charge is stalking.
			::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.)
	As all know, the charge of stalking, or ] is problematic. A common set of facts showing up at this notice board involves an editor who makes some mistake, is corrected by a second editor, and then the second editor decides it would be prudent to check through other contributions of the first editor to see if there are other issues. That results in editor one observing that editor two is showing up at articles they've never edited before and making quite a few changes in short order. It sure looks like wikihounding. This behavior is not just tolerated, it is encouraged. As an extreme case, when some has enough copyvios, we go through a CCI which involves review of every single edit. In more benign cases, it involves review of many recent edits by some editor, the placing of that editor on their watchlist (which may be automatic), followed by subsequent changes. All acceptable. In other cases, some editor gets upset at another editor, and decide to stalk their every edit, reverting often, commenting acrimoniously, and not always within policy. Our policy notes that one set of actions occurs "with good cause", while the other is prohibited, but doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference. It doesn't sound amenable to a simple metric, and may need the ] treatment.
			* Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: '] is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with : he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here.
			* Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content calling it "irrelevant". At ], PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article ], , cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, ], the entire Architecture section was . However, their church articles always contain something like {{tq|The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings.}} sourced to ''achurchnearyou.com'', often as a separate "Present day" section. of ] (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose: {{tq|All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs.}} (And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing ] and ], both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.)
			* Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as , was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.)
			* Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles.
			There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note {{U|Liz}} has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that ] instance (at the end of , which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. ] (]) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Andy wants to know what we are going to do about it. Step one is to determine if, in fact, the evidence supports the charge.--]] 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			:All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'd like to point to ]: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. ] (]) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).
			::I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at ] and ], and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: ].
			::I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.
			::Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for ], which is also the example of a lead in ], starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{tl|cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.
			::Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.
			::The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, ] (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).
			::It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.
			::Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. ]] 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work ===
	{{od}}
			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)
	To pre-empt concerns such as "Our policy ... doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference" I provided a link, above, to a recent Arbcom ruling. Since it clearly wasn't obvious enough, so allow me to quote:
			: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)
	{{Quote|...relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.}}
			::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/] in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --] (]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —] (]) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
			::::::::To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @] has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. ] (]) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the ]. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. ] (]) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks ] (]) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? ]] 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
			{{U|voorts}} - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. ] (]) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. ''Sound of evil laughter.'') --] (]) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How's this draft proposal: {{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace<ins>, converting redirects to articles,</ins> or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.
			::Having seen on ] yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.
			::And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. ]] 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. ] (]/]) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. ] (]) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - ] (]) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: an infobox? a few words about local authority area? a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. ]] 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to ], never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. ]] 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Thanks for the question ]. To clarify, I meant '''any''' expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing ''anywhere'' on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - ] (]) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " ]] 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --] (]) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Okay, looks good. @] what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::{{U|Cremastra}} - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. ] (]) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Hold on. This goes much further than @] wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? ] (]) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at ]. I've lost patience. ]] 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
			:::::::::::::# No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
			:::::::::::::# No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
			:::::::::::::# No editing in mainspace.
			:::::::::::::]] 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.{{pb}}{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):{{pb}}
			::'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
			::'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.
			::'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.
			:{{pb}}The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but '''would personally favour Option B'''. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into ], a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. ] (]) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]: I made some changes. ] (]/]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. ] (]) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::p.s. ] this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. ] (]) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? ] (]) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. ] (]) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree. ] (]) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] and @]: option C amended below. ] (]/]) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? ]] 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. ] (]/]) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s) ===
	Also, please do not confuse my not commenting on the content of the edits given as agreeing with them; my concern here is stalking, and I deliberately addressed only that. You will note that I have challenged the majority, either by reverting, or on the respective talk pages. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:34, 7 June 2013 (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.
	:Andy, thanks for the link to the Arbcom ruing. I just reviewed five cases of wikihounding, which weren't very helpful. I missed the link you gave earlier, and will review it.--]] 15:02, 7 June 2013 (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.
	:Andy thanks for the clarification that not commenting on the substance of the edits should not be construed as agreement. I do see disagreement about editing policy and appreciate that those were not brought here, which for review of behavior. I had started a post on how to address some of those editing policies, but it didn't belong here, and then I realized you hadn't raised it. I did not mean to imply that your silence here on those issues was concurrence.--]] 15:07, 7 June 2013 (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 reviewed 50 edits of Nikkimaria, those just prior to the filing by Andy. (That is probably not enough, but it is tedious, and if viewed as a useful metric, we should find someone to automate it.) In each edit, I checked to see if Nikkimaria was editing just after Andy, or not. In 2 of the 50 edits, her edit followed his. In 48, it did not. This does not preclude the possibility that there were intervening edits, and she was editing something he had edited. That can be checked.--]] 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	===Numbers don't tell the whole story, but here are some counts===
	Andy identified 22 diffs in the list above in which Nikkimaria edited immediately after Andy. (The list is characterized as examples, so may not be exhaustive.) 22 seems like a lot, and I confess if some editor reverted me 22 times I'd not treat it as coincidence. But it is relevant to look at the count in light of Nikkimaria's contributions. The 22 diffs cover the time range 21 December 2012 to 5 June 2013. If I count correctly (and I did it quickly) Nikkimaria has over 7000 edits in the same time period. That means less than one third of one per cent of Nikkimaria's edits are in that list, which doesn't, on its face, sound like single minded obsession with another editor. It might be useful to have metrics for cases in which wikihounding has been upheld as well as cases in which it has been dismissed, to see if the metric is useful and how this compares. I do not have those numbers, but if a case of wikihounding exists, it will (IMO) have to be on the nature of the edits, not on the counts. I have identified one edit that troubled me, and asked Nikkimaria about it. I'll keep looking.--]] 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			==== Uninvolved editors ====
	It is also relevant to look at Andy's count over the same time period. If I counted correctly there are about 9500 edits in the same time period. Which means the 22 edits identified are less than one quarter of one per cent of Andy's edits. This isn't presented as definitive proof, but if editor A targets editor B in violation of policy, I would expect significantly higher percentages.
			* '''Oppose all'''. I would have voted '''Option B''', but the user demonstated enough maturity and self-criticism, meaning he's willing to improve his long-term contribution. Moreover, even if it could have been embarrassing to admit, he also cared enough to inform us he's on the ], and as a ] myself, I know that's hard. My two cents go to {{u|DragonofBatley}}. You're welcome! ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Proposal''': Could we maybe allow DoB to continue editing mainspace if, and only if, any additions/edits they make are supported by a reference, to which the quote that supports the edit must be added. That will make it easier for us to double check their work and allow DoB to refine their skills in supporting their edits.] (]) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	: That would appear to excuse bad behaviour based on good behaviour elsewhere. I don't believe we've ever defined stalking to specifically involve a particular ratio of one editor's contributions in any case. One does not have to devote one's entire wikicareer to following a particular editor for it to be obvious that one has a pattern of following that editor around and making combative edits that have a deleterious effect on community relations. ] (]) 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	===Suggested close===		==== Involved editors ====
			:{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm too involved to close this myself, but I've read enough, and seen too many deficiencies on both sides <u>such that I cannot</u> <s>to</s> recommend that Nikkimaria be sanctioned for wikihouding or Andy for provoking. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it isn't simply that both have flaws—I've searched several of the edits listed by Andy to look for evidence that '''either''' has attempted editing101—go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, and came up empty. (Addendum, I reviewed the 21 diffs and see three cases where Andy bought it up on the talk page. I see three other instances of talk page edits, 2 by Andy, one by Nikkimaria, but not related to each other's edits)
			*'''Support''' option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also '''support''' option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. '''Oppose''' option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. ''']''' (]) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose all''', as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --] (]) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''C''' if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: {{tq| If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree.}} I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) ] (]) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Prefer''' the less stringent '''option A''' because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on ], all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. ] (]) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. ''']''' (]) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:"Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with ] and ]. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. ] (]) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring ], I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - ] (]) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] at this point. I can see you do not like me. I can see this from both your wording of "sub-standard crap" and "go for a ban". Some choice wording and actions. I've already answered enough but your clearly made up your mind. Nothing else will convince you. Perhaps you should not engage further with me at this point. Cause nothing I say or do seems to provide enough evidence to quell your subtle dislike of me. Prehaps you should just let the other editors handle it. Im not gonna apologise further and try to change your opinion of me. I wont reply further to you at this point. Your wording is coming across as aggressive and threating to me. ] (]) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Absolute nonsense. I neither like nor dislike you. I have major concerns over your ability to edit and I stand by my judgement of your output. I have further concerns over your decision to create category pages and work on categories while the thread was going on rather than start clearing up the mess you’ve made. All you’ve done is provide more evidence that you lack the ability to edit within the guidelines. Again, this is nothing to do with liking or not liking you as an individual (I’m entirely ambivalent about you) but it is about your output and the additional time and effort you are making others go through to tidy up the mess you’ve made. ] (]) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. ] (]) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{cob}}
			==== Discussion ====
			* I think I would be happier if:
			# there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400).
			# I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "{{tq|This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}.}}" This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB '''prove''' to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - ] (]) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? ''']''' (]) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See ]. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). ]] 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* {{ping|KJP1|Cremastra}} Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">{{snd}}Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			* I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, '''before''' posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be.
			:Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.
			:I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community ''consensus'' to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.
			:I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --] (]) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – ] and ] also apply here. --] (]) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{re|Tryptofish}} I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the ]. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance).{{snd}}] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --] (]) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::@] He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. ]] 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. ] (]) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			**That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. ] (]) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@], I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. ] (]) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too ] for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. ] (]) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. ] (]) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but ]. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case.
			:::::The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with ''structure'' while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe ''structure'' to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --] (]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I ] KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. ] (]/]) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in.
			:::::::I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time?
			:::::::They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them.
			:::::::Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors.
			:::::::TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. ] (]) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@] {{tqq| list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed}} there's ]. ] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::@] Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @] - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! ] (]) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. ] (]) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{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)
			== User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles ==
	As I posted on each of their talk pages:
			] 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.
	<blockquote>
	''I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.''
	</blockquote>
			Diffs:
	I hope an uninvolved admin will close this and urge that they both start over.--]] 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::Citation '''bot''' is an automated process, and not a human. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. ] (]) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You can add this to the page in question – <nowiki>{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}</nowiki> – or you can add this to a specific citation – <nowiki>{{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}}</nowiki> – to keep the bot away. See -- ].]] 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that ] did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on ], see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Citation bot is not a ], but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
			::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348
			::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078
			::"All ] apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
			::-] ] (]) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the ''person'' who is ''using'' the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Most of these seem to have been invoked by {{u|Abductive}}, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? ] (]) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on ]. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee {{rpa}}. Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. ] (]) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
			:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493
			:Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
			:These edits were suggested by the following user:
			:*]
			:] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Found another bad date in another article:
			::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by ]
			::Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. ] (]) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Found another bad date in another article:
			:::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)
			:::Suggested by user:
			:::*]
			:::Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates ] (]) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". ] (]) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Because it is not necessarily an error. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It is still about Citation bot. ] (]) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by ]. ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			You have given the operators ] to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? ] (]) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits.]] 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the ]. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —] (]) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that.]] 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
			:::::-]
			:::::] is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It would be best if the bad source was removed, per ] and ]. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes.]] 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Can you quote the part of ] which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. ? ] (]) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —] (]) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about ], not ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about ''your'' use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. ] (]) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] specifically says {{tq|The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. '''In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account.''' Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot}}. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —] (]) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tqq|I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.}} I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to ] to me... - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
			::::::::::::As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —] (]) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>moved down from the middle of the above comment (]). &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			::::::::::::::So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right??]] 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. ] (]) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Unsupervised bot and script use has ]. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix ].... ] (]) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We're into ]. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. ] (]) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{pb}}I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to {{u|Whoop whoop pull up}} two weeks ago () about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed ''me'' to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have ''continued'' to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at {{Section link|User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|Checking IABot runs}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. ''Both'' should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here ''neither''. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.
			:* Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
			:** ] says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, '''whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page'''" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
			:** BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of ]. Now, ROLE ''does'' have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple '''managers'''", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're ''developed and maintained'' by a team of people (rather than ones that can be ''used'' by multiple people).
			:** Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to ''50,000'' pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the ''only'' people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved ''despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible''; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they ''were, in fact, approved'' implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
			:** ] seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
			:** ] says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ''''", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
			:** ] provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
			:* Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
			:** ] says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved ''despite'' the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).
			:] <sup>] 🏳️‍⚧️ ]</sup> 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.
			::"Both should take reponsibility"
			::-] at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 ] (]) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? ] <sup>] 🏳️‍⚧️ ]</sup> 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.
			::::Policy is very clear, '''don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus.''' ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. {{pb}}These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. ] (]) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Or, as ] puts it: {{tq|Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.}} ] (]) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Citation bot has not been {{tqq|approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking}}. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at {{slink|User:Citation bot|Bot approval}}. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.{{pb}}But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.{{pb}}If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. ] (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot.]] 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::☝🏽{{Pb}}It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.{{pb}}I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.{{pb}}Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.{{pb}}Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.{{pb}}I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against {{u|Abductive}} or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion ''somewhere'' specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping {{u|AManWithNoPlan}}, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. ] (]) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots ''and'' checking the results.<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).{{pb}}However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.{{pb}}Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.{{pb}}Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, ] (]) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots"}} Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. ] (]) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			: The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. ] (]) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{od}}
			::Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 ] (]) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	What on Earth does that have to do with the fact that she's stalking my edits - and has tacitly acknowledged doing so here ''and when I raised the matter on her talk page''?
			*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 ==
	Here's where I raised one such staking on an article talk page (she didn't respond): ; and another: (which is clearly linked in my fist set of links, above( and another: .
			*{{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.
	But even had I not done so; stalking is ''prohibited'', with few exceptions, that are not applicable here. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I for one, did not mention Andy before simply because I know much about this background. The problem with SPB's proposal is that it won't solve anything and we'll see another ANI or RFCU or (yuck) Arbcom case. Something more than a dual trout slapping is needed here.] ] 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Pumpkinsky, do you have something specific in mind? While I'm still getting up to speed, and may well not have the understanding that others have in these incidents, I see an editor who thinks that anyone wishing to add an infobox to an article requires a consensus discussion at the talk page if an editor disagrees. I think that's a perversion of the intent of BRD, but maybe I'm wrong. We should have a community discussion to see what the community thinks. The same editor thinks empty parameters in infoboxes should be removed, even though the policy doesn't support that conclusion, so as a community, we should clarify what to do with empty parameters. It also appears that some subset of articles (classical music) has their own special rules appliable to infoboxes, which are not discussed in the logical locations. Let's find out if the community agrees, and decide, one way or the other. Several of the disputed edits are traceable to two editors taking a different position on these issues. It is hard to declare that one, or the other editor is in the wrong, if the policies are silent, conflicting or unclear. Color me naive, but I see two editors, both intent on improving the encyclopedia, who have different views about specific aspects of editing policy, and if we resolve those issue, either the issues will go away (ok, no, I'm not that naive) or we will have clearer policy planks to smack around violators.--]] 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::How many editors do you see stalking? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Andy, I'm happy to see that there are some cases where you posted on the talk page, as is the desired process. I see that Nikkimaria did not respond, as she should have. As I mentioned, I did not review everyone of the edits you cited. I found some early in the list that had no such notice on the talk page, and some late in the list. If you think I coincidentally stumbled on a misrepresentation subset, feel free to let me know how many of the reverts were followed by talk page discussions. If that is important. However, your point, it seems, is that she engaged in stalking and has tacitly admitted it. I don't see diffs. You have over 9500 edits during this period, so I don't have time to review them all to search. Can you point out what you mean?--]] 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I have to agree that Nikki seems to be stalking Andy and Gerda and that issue is more than just the infobox war issue. I've seen many cases like this in my years and I fear the whole case won't be known unless an AC case is opened. That doesn't mean AC is the only solution. This is what I propose: 1) Nikki and Andy banned from editing, adding, or removing any infobox (that way one side can't say they're being picked on) until an RFC on Infoboxes is concluded, 2) the RFC on Infoboxes runs for 1-3 months and covers scope of their use and what to do if disagreements arise, 3) both of them agree to the outcome of the RFC or said person is banned from them for one year, 4) IMHO Nikki is lucky she hasn't been blocked and/or de-adminned for stalking. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I know much more about Nikki re Gerda than Nikki re Andy. ] ] 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::: I'd like to see an RfC on infoboxes. There are a number of issues that should be resolved. You stated that the issue is more than infoboxes. What else? I just reviewed every one of the 21 edits listed by Andy and every single one involves the edit of an infobox. Andy raised this at ANI, not as a referendum on infobox edits, but as a claim of stalking. I think that claim is weak, and should be dismissed. Any proposal to ban should be brought up at AN, not ANI, and should be brought up as a new item. We have set, IMO, a bad precedent in some threads of an editor raising one issue, and the community jumping into different areas. I see that as an abuse of process. (Which does not mean I am opposed to boomerang, or using editors other edits to decide upon remedies). If someone wants to propose a ban covering one or both, they should propose it at AN with the relevant diffs. While the one's that Andy listed might be part of that list, and proposal to ban them both ought to be done by another party looking at contributions of both. If someone wants an Arbcom case, they can propose one. That sounds like overkill, as I have yet to see that this is broader than policy disagreements in several narrowly defined areas of infoboxes. Arbcom's remit is behavior, not tweaking editorial policy.--]] 23:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Nobody else here - not even those seeing me as some kind of satan; not even Nikki herself - has said that there is no stalking. The evidence is plain to see. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::The diffs are given in my initial post, at the head of this section. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:14, 7 June 2013 (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.
	Sphil, you say you would like to see an RFC on infoboxes. I call your attention to ], an extensive RFC on the subject that took place in 2010. To summarize, there was a clear majority of editors who opposed inclusion of infoboxes in classical music articles, and a strong minority in favor (I was in the minority). The conclusion of the discussion was that editors should post to the talk page ''before'' creating an infobox. I thought that was an eminently fair and reasonable solution to the problem, and I think that if everyone follows that community decision, the problem will be largely solved. If Andy, Maria and Gerda agree to abide by that decision, it seems we can close this whole thing amicably. --] (]) 08:50, 8 June 2013 (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.
	: That's an extreme simplification of the outcome of that RfC, and under no circumstances does it excuse an editor systematically stripping infoboxes from pages that another editor has ''written from scratch''. A large part of the debate in question stemmed from the fetishing of Original Authors and not editing in ways that would discourage them from creating content. Stalking someone's new pages and stripping content from them couldn't be a clearer violation of that. ] (]) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Thank you, Chris, but it's not an ''over-simlification'', it's a ''gross misrepresentation''. (If I'm wrong, Ravpapa will obviously quote the part of the closing remarks which mandate "''that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox''".) Furthermore, many of the examples I give at the top of this section have nothing to do with classical music. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:29, 8 June 2013 (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.
	New day, this is (again) too much for me to read. How did we get from stalking to infobox again? - I hope I will live to see the day that the addition of an infobox is considered added (useful, structured, accessible) content and not as "aggressive" or "provoking". - "Did you know ... that ''']es''' on ] are used to extract ] using ] algorithms?" (]) - Until that day, I will add one only to my own articles and others where I assume the main author(s) will be happy about it. In other cases, I will only mention it on the talk page - or not at all. I will not revert one nor collapse sections. - If everybody involved did the same, we might get a bit closer to the envisioned day, --] (]) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (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)
	Perhaps I am misunderstanding the outcome of the RFC. Here are the by the closing admin:
			: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)
	{{Quote |Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.
			::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)
	* WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
			: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)
	* '''The guideline on ] has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion.''' (my emphasis)
			::If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. ] (]) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	* There is sufficient support for ] to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
			::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)
	* Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.}}
			:::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 ===
	and here is the that the admin is referring to:
			:I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
	{{Quote |We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and '''we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page.''' (again, my emphasis) Particular care should be taken with ]s as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the ] and ].}}
			::
			:1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content.
			::
			:2: I see that other contributors on Misplaced Pages leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one.
			::
			:3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly?
			::
			:Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool.
			::2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection.
			::3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. ]] 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I accept your apology. ]] 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Response and apology from PEPSI697 ===
	I understand that to mean that you should discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox. Am I missing something? --] (]) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:On the contrary, that's an expression of how the members of one particular project prefer to behave. It has the same status as a paragraph on a single editor's user page. Neither the project nor its members own or control articles they chose to regard as within its scope. This is, though, irrelevant to the issue of stalking. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:46, 8 June 2013 (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)
	{{ec}}] states: ''The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.'' and that notice above the edit window says ''Work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be '''edited''', used, and redistributed—by anyone'' (emphasis mine). So this concept that there is a "principal author" and they get to decide whether a given article has a box or not isn't supported by the policy. Looking at the first example provided, ], I see that PotW added the box, Nm removed it -- which is in alignment per bold, and PotW restored it and editing ceased. Which is fine. On that particular article, the box provides no information -- it just repeats what's in a very short article and therefore just strikes me as just clutter. In any event, this whole thread strikes me as PotW doesn't want to discuss on a case by case basis whether given articles have boxes or not. Support close as no admin action appropriate. <small>]</small> 11:11, 8 June 2013 (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.
	:It is not required by policy to have to ask permission every time you add an infobox, there's the concept to be bold. - BUT: I still recommend to do so, at least for a while, for reasons of politeness and respect. But that includes politeness and respect towards those who want an uncollapsed infobox - like me - also. (If you look at the history of ], mentioned above, that doesn't always happen.) --] (]) 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::My desire for an RfC was not simply to determine whether infobox inclusion in a subset of articles should be handled differently; there are other open issues: how should empty parameters be treated, and what should the rules be for subjective fields. Both of those issues arose in the diffs above, and I have seen the issue of subjective fields causing edits wars elsewhere, so I want an RfC on infoboxes, not an RfC on infoboxes in composer articles. The RfC you linked did not reach conclusions on either of those issues.
			::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)
	::Andy notes that the ANI was filed on a stalker issue. I see the discussion drifting to the substance underlying the conflict. I personally think if the underlying issues are resolved, it will make it easier to solve the conflict, but ANI is not the place to debate editorial policy.
			:::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)
	::Can we return to determining whether Andy has a case, and then we can determine where and how to open an RfC to address the editorial questions?--]] 12:34, 8 June 2013 (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)
	:No, NE Ent, it's that another editor is staking my edits. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:53, 8 June 2013 (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)
	::Andy, you keep saying that, but I don't see a lot of support for your position. As you pointed out, Arbcom gave some guidance and indicated that a relevant factor includes "whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community". So while you keep posting that I'm missing the point when I focus on the content, I'm doing so because of the ArbCom guidance. I happen to think that the position that infoboxes in certain articles have an exception which isn't even mentioned in ] is unlikely to be sustained by the community, if actually discussed, but I could be wrong. If the community clearly points out that the handling of infoboxes should be consistent everywhere, then the reversion of your edits will be a violation and can be handled appropriately. If the community decides that the treatment should have an exception in the case of one Wikiproject, then it should note that in the guidelines, and you will have to accept the ruling. Whether you are being wikihounded is dependent on whether your edits are viewed as problematic, or whether Nikkimaria's are. At the moment, it isn't clear, and I cannot imagine the community will conclude wikihounding has occurred in such a gray area.--]] 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::If you don't see support for my assertion that my edits are being stalked, then you need to re-read the above thread. I have already pointed out to you that you are the ''only'' person to have asserted that no stalking has taken place. The ''viewed as problematic'' point (disputable in the cases concerned) has several qualifiers in the Arbcom ruling, which you seem to ignore. Your focus on content remains irrelevant. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Andy, a number of editors have weighed in and we need more. I count one, PumpkinSky, who has supported the stalking claim. You might point to Bearian, but that editor made an early comment before much of the evidence was reviewed, and hasn't weighed in since. At most, that's two, and that's counting generously. You are the one who linked to the Arbcom guidance which suggests we need to find edits by Nikkimaria that are not supported by policy. I've reviewed every single one of her edits, and do not recall that any were challenged by the community, and if I missed one, we need a pattern, not a single edit. That's the standard you linked to, and it does not support you. Ironically, I may be one of your bigger supporters. I do not like someone reverting the addition of an infobox, and I personally think the burden should be on the editor wanting to remove it, so that's why I'd like to see an RfC—I think it might support you and I will be supporting your position in it. But absent that community decision, we have 22 edits by Nikkimaria out of many thousands, none of which were challenged by the community. As stalking claims go, that's pretty weak tea.--]] 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Let me put it differently. In how many of the 22 edits listed did you bring the issue to the talk page, and get community support that your edit was appropriate? I can only find a single post of support, that by ] in ]. Can you point me to the clause in ] stating that getting a single editor to agree with you equates to community support?--]] 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Very simple solution here - will Andy and Nikki agree to avoid each other for the next (amount of time here). From what I see here its clear they are at odds about these boxes. We are talking about just a box....something that if there or not is not harming the project - however there interaction is causing problems. So lets deal with what is more disruptive...the behavior.] (]) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	::In most, possibly all cases, Andy chose to add an infobox to an article, and Nikkimaria chose to remove it on the basis that she believes it doesn't belong. If we adopt your simple solution, Andy can add infoboxes wherever he chooses, and she can do nothing about it. Is that your intended solution? Andy gets to decide which articles have infoboxes, and Nikkimaria has no say? (FTR, I do not agree with how Nikkimaria is responding, but I'm not willing to buy in to this extreme measure.)--]] 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::It is not only Andy adding infoboxes - there are many many editors that do just this and a project dedicate to this task. But there is however only one editor following the other correct? They should simply avoid each-other. I take it noone else feels they are being stocked in this manner correct? ] (]) 21:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: First, I appreciate the time and research you've put into this SPhilbrick - and do want to make that clear. Now, as I read this in pertaining to the original post: Bearian, BWilkins, PumpkinSky, Thumperward, and I have all taken this as a serious situation. So I'm not sure exactly how weak that tea really is. I doubt it was ever intended that this thread be developed into a "info box" discussion, although I can't say I'm surprised that it has. I also understand how you would object to my "outside the box" thinking in regards to a common courtesy of a principle author; and fully understood that it is in ways contrary to ], however - it's simply my own approach to a situation, rather than something I thought should be codified. Now, getting back to the stalking issue, I think it's only fair to say that Nikki ''has'' said: "'']''". Now perhaps that's not a full admission of anything, but I think it's implied that improvements can be made, and I trust that effort will be made. I also have concerns about , but note that both Gerda and Nikki seem willing to continue to work through this without intervention; so I'm inclined to respect that as well. I think Andy has made a good case for his complaint, but I'd like to think that with Nikki's agreement that we could mark this as closed, noted, and archived for future reference if needed. I can't say I'll be surprised if I see the term "info box" ], but I'd also suspect that it would be a very unpleasant experience for ''MANY'' editors if/when it happens. I hadn't expected to comment further on this topic, but now I have. Hopefully I can walk away from this now unimpeded. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::: If I've said anything to suggest I don't think it this is serious, please point it out so I can correct it. I think when two editors with 140K edits between them are at loggerheads, it is serious. When the underlying editorial issues are issues that have been festering for years without resolution, it is serious. However, Andy insists that the issue is narrow - Wikihounding to be precise. It is that charge which is weak tea. I challenge anyone to identify an ANI case where Wikihounding was upheld where the edits in question were a fraction of one per cent of the total edits. And no, Nikkimaria willingness to leave alone any article he has written is not an admission of wikihounding, it is a good faith attempt to resolve a conflict. What exactly, do you think should happen? Are you proposing that Nikkimaria should be blocked? How long, for what reason, and what rationale? We pretend that the purpose of a block is to prevent further harm, but she's already agreed not to edit an article he writes, so what would a block stop, other than the hundreds of good edits she is making even as we type?--]] 20:36, 8 June 2013 (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)
	::::: Weak tea? Perhaps I have another language problem. I don't want to waste time in digging up diffs, and Nikkimaria will certainly have good explanations why she showed up at ] for the first time the same day I (see talk), and on ] right after I of one (that I didn't create). - I am interested in an approach for working together better in the future, ], --] (]) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
			::Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you {{tq|absolutely agree with}} isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- ] (]) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Ok, sorry. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Non-neutral paid editor ==
	:::::* Whilst it may seem reasonable to insist that the case be narrowly focussed on the 'Wikihounding' issue, it's a ploy often used to avoid a ]. Let's be clear, though, that I'm not saying that its being so used here. The problem with this dance of tango is that one dancer seems to want the floor all to himself, so that he can do as he wants without interference, but the other dancer just wants to be consulted on the steps and is upset when no request is forthcoming from the party whose onus it's on to make it. In the absence of a demonstrable preparedness to pro-actively seek and then abide by consensus, blocking or granting unilateral restraining orders just won't solve the problem. Nobody ] any given WP article, and if the collective editors of a page (or a category in this case) wants no infoboxes, then the article creator must cede to consensus. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 03:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
			@] 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)
	====Question for Andy, Gerda and Nikkimaria====
	Would Andy and Gerda agree not to add infoboxes to classical music articles, or to any others where they can anticipate that a group of editors already at the article will object? And in return would Nikkimaria agree not to follow Andy's or Gerda's edits, and not to remove infoboxes that they have added? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::This is a positive approach, however any kind of understanding must cover infobox ''templates'' as well as articles. The latter is an area where ] and ] have been extremely active— though not ]. --'']]'' 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I have the impression that we leave the original case more and more. What I did in templates was create one for Bach's compositions (within Classical music from the start), making template Musical composition compatible with it (only because Nikkimaria insisted on not using Bach composition for the ]), and help with the wanted one for opera. What Andy did I don't know because I don't follow his edits, but I know that he helped with all three. I don't see problems nor would I call it "extremely active". Back to the original case: with Andy not around, I would simply ask Nikkimaria to avoid edits that can be interpreted as stalking. Peace could be rather easy here, --] (]) 12:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Gerda, we're talking about the addition of extra fields to boxes. For example, ] which now has 44 fields (31 of them visible). About half of these were added by you . Are you willing to undertake to stop doing this? That would be a big step forward.'']]'' 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::They were added - as said above - to be compatible with Bach composition when Nikkimaria used this template instead of Bach. (I confess that I was a bit furious when . If such things don't happen again, I will not do it again.) I suggest to continue talking about this very general template (how many fields does Infobox church have?) on the template talk. Back to here, back to my suggestion, --] (]) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Gerda, we all appreciate that you don't edit war, and are willing to discuss infobox issues in a calm way. The problem is that you make changes that affect large numbers of articles, without consulting other editors. Moreover, instead of participating in centralized discussions and respecting their outcomes, you've initiated a whole series of distributed debates, that are repetitive and waste everybody's time. Instead of working on content, we've all been chasing around trying to locate and respond to your latest initiatives. Leaving aside the extensive template changes and just looking at articles, you've started ''at least'' five discussions since February: ] on 27 February 2013, ] on 5 March 2013, ] on 21 March 2013, ] on 25 March 2013, and ] on 16 May 2013. '']]'' 00:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Please look a little closer: 1) Stoepel was in response to a discussion on ] (I DO try to work with projects.) The author installed an infobox. 2) I didn't start a discussion on Peter Planyavsky, I installed an infobox for an article that I had created. (It was promptly reverted.) 3) I started a discussion on Bach, agreed. Some editors said it was too long, and could only be accepted if it contained only a minimum. 4) Trying to learn, I suggested a minimum for Handel. 5) I did NOT start a discussion for Wagner, I followed advice for a solution, see below, --] (]) 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::For clarity: In only one case did I insert an infobox in an article: my "own". Please have a look at the ], that was efficient and encouraging, if you ask me. It was an article I knew well, I had nominated it for DYK. --] (]) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Gerda, All you have to do is follow the links I have given above. <u>In each case</u> you started the discussion. I think it would help you if you can be frank about what happened. --'']]'' 15:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I was learning. From 1) and 2) I learned that an infobox was possible for a composer, from 3) that my suggestion was too long, from 4) that it was not wanted even short, therefore 5) only talk, no hope to have it in the article, no discussion. Why we still had a discussion, I don't know. - I will not even try ''Infobox on composer talk'' again - and said so several times in this thread. --] (]) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::ps: link to another ], in case of interest, --] (]) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
	::For Andy: "I'll respond to SPhilbrick's questions when I'm able." That goes for other questions as well, please see his talk.
	::For myself, reply to ]: I think my approach (outlined above) covers it, please read. Classical music is against infoboxes for composers. Infoboxes for compositions are used and discussed, an infobox for orchestras was recently developed. I don't think that I EVER added an infobox where I expected a controversy. - Nikkimaria already stopped reverting complete infoboxes (at least mine), but I would appreciate if she would discuss changes rather than making them, see above, diffs of BWV 103, and those are just one example. - My thoughts are more with Andy's health now than with infoboxes. --] (]) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Andy's health, o come on. Andy is a battle hardned troll, if you cant see that, then I dont know what to say. You surely noticed himslef and jack routinly target editor's pages and go through the same old arguments, bit by bit. And this gang tend to swarm. A nice eg of the MO is . But whatever, keep on going. ] (]) 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I have the odd scar myself from locking horns with Andy, but the very prominent banner suddenly posted to the top of his talk page makes me think it would be seemly to put this discussion on hold until he is back in circulation. What is amiss I cannot say, but you don't post banners like that for something minor. Pax? ] (]) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
			:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
	:::Gerda, what I'm getting at is that, if this goes to ArbCom – and it has been going on for so long that this seems likely – all parties risk being topic-banned from infobox additions or discussions. So the best thing would be for the three of you (or two if it's mostly Andy and Nikki) to get together and agree a compromise position: I'll stop doing X and you stop doing Y. That's infinitely preferable to having ArbCom decide it for you. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
			:* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
	:::::SV I think this is a sensible suggestion. To begin, I'd like to add to the suggestion that anyone, whether Andy or another editor, cease adding infoboxes at the time an article is featured on the main page. Editors who curate articles that are featured on the main page have enough to deal with during the stressful days leading up to TFA, (polishing, etc.), and the days after, (clean up, etc.) and should be not subjected to hostile infobox conversations. Thanking our editors for writing featured content would go a long way toward bringing about peace instead of deriding them. My two cents. ] (]) 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
			:* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
	::::::As far as I know that was the last time (August 2012), so the ceasing you ask for seems to have happened already. - News from Andy is that surgery went well but he will not be able to edit for a week. Can this be closed, asking everybody to assume good faith and look forward? Nikkimaria and I had ] today ;) --] (]) 20:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
			:* - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
	::::::: This is alas not quite far enough if you want to stop storms of this sort. I evidence the state of affiars at ] when Gerda 'playfully' inserted a infobox on the article talk page while the article was coming up for front page feature. When I archived the lengthy and futile discussion over this the day before the article was front-paged, (and incidentally was thus enabled to feature Gerda's very nice Wagner DYK box there), Mr.Mabbett stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving. This is presently the subject of a complaint ], as Mr. Mabbett is under a permanent ban from interfering with articles when they are coming up for front-page. So Gerda is perfectly aware that the 'ceasing' has not taken place (at the very least in spirit, although I note Mr. Mabbett quibbles about the details). Mr.Mabbett's surgery - and of course I wish the man good health - does not somehow restore the GF which many of us have alas found it impossible, from bitter experience, to assume in his case. It is because Mr. Mabbett and some of those in his train play these silly games that time which could be spent on editing is spent on mutual masturbation (oops - did I say that?) of this sort. I don't exempt myself totally for being such a prat as to rise to their provocations, but occasionally even an equable soul like myself feels the need to try to draw a line.--] (]) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
			:* Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
	::::::* September 2012, same thing , and February 2013, . I keep a very small watchlist and so am only showing the instances of which I'm aware. We lost a very good and productive editor because the September event. I have to ask, why? ] (]) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (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)
	::::::::*"Same thing"? - The "Pilgrim"-Infobox was not added on TFA day but later, ] HAD an infobox, only "invisible". It has a visible collapsed infobox now. Some editors learn, - I miss ], --] (]) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
			::done ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::*Hi Gerda, just to clarify - I posted here in response to a very sensible suggestion SlimVirgin made and I added a concrete example using the words "the days before and the days after TFA" with the suggestion that perhaps that behavior should cease. As SV said "I'll stop doing X and you'll stop doing Y" - my example can be seen as X. This has now degenerated into a "that didn't happen", "that's ceased", "that doesn't happen anymore" when in fact ''three more'' examples have been presented. SV is quite right in saying that it's better to hash it out rather than having it go to Arbom, but we'll never get anywhere if it always degenerates in this fashion. I'll step out now; I was simply seconding SV's suggestion. ] (]) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
			::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] reasons for them.
	:::::::*(ec) Cease is not stop, right? - Putting something on a talk page a week or so before TFA, explicitly stating that it was not to be considered for the article but the talk, is not the same as on the article on TFA day, right. (And I will not do even do that again.) When the talk was archived Andy complained that it was in the way of automatic archiving, - was that "stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving"? - That's what I am aware of, --] (]) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (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.
	:::::::::: Gerda, do not misrepresent! - and do not imply that I interfered with an auto-archive. The page had always been manually archived, until Mr. Mabbett in his self-righteousness unilaterally (without any discussion) converted it to auto-archiving. This is all evident in the page history. I had no wish on the day of the article being front-paged to start another futile argument thread, so left it alone. When issues which I raise are turned into implicit accusations against myself, I detect that the spirit of the master temporarily in exile has found a worthy inheritor.--] (]) 04:56, 11 June 2013 (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.
	:::::::::I'm not familiar with the details of the dispute, so I don't know all the loopholes, but the best way forward is for everyone relying on a loophole to stop that way of thinking (e.g. I didn't add one, I just made an invisible one visible). The best situation would be if Gerda and Andy would agree not to add infoboxes to pages they didn't create or weren't in the process of significantly improving, and none to pages where they know editors will object (e.g. composers); and if Nikki would agree not to remove any, and not to look at Andy's contribs anymore. If someone does add an infobox and others disagree, open an RfC on the talk page, let it run for 30 days, have an uninvolved editor close it, and stick to the outcome.
			::#Do you '''really''' think phrases like ''"China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments."'' are consistent with ]? '''Really?''' ''Maybe'' cutting '''all''' of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
			::# That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently . It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.
			::In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably ]" seems downright ]. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns ? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a ] and ] manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that ] is supposed to prevent. --] (]) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like ], you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't ''bad'' by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply ''not good enough'' or ''relevant enough'' for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.
			::::Given ''this'' context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not ''obligated'' to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. ] (]) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @]'s paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @] provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
			:My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. ] (]) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::''Adding'': Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 ] (]) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*An editor with a declared COI should ''never'' be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the {{tq|strongly discouraged}} wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:] So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this {{redacted|]}}?
			*:Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that '''if''' is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering '''is not even seen anywhere on their front page''' - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as . The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. ] (]) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban)}} - that would be wrong. See ]; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we ''want'' editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read ], and especially ] Having a ''perspective'' on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. ] editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then ] needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.
			::::It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah ] editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that ''every'' edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it ''strictly'' barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --] (]) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's ''not'' the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change {{tq|strongly discouraged}} to {{tq|prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism)}}. I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though.
			::::::Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be ''manually'' saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that {{tq|editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests}} - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I ''need'' to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to ''this'' case, rather than a general statement.
			::::::Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{tqq|So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this}} Uh, guys? Does ] mean nothing to you? - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::Ask yourselves whether you want to go through an ArbCom case about this, and if not make every effort to avoid it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
			*:@] - I think that '''sanction should be swiftly applied'''. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. ]&thinsp;] 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: {{ping|InformationToKnowledge}}, '''do not''' attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with ''anyone's'' real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the ''principles of privacy'' still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. ]&thinsp;] 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Could we get an edit to ] for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. ] (]) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== ] back to Andrewjlockley ===
	::::::::::Since February, we have had at least 16 classical music-related infobox debates/discussions, plus an unknown number relating to architecture, visual arts etc. ''Anything'' that can bring this to an end will be welcome, even an ArbCom case. --'']]'' 09:44, 11 June 2013 (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.
			: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.
			:I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the ], the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
			:P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::With the greatest of respect @], your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @], or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether ] had a conflict of interest when they edited ], which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. ] (]) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::See ]... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
			:::All of this is pertinent. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that {{noping|EMSmile}} has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that {{noping|Andrewjlockley}} is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. ] concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
			::::The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If {{noping|InformationToKnowledge}} is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be ''they both should be'' though.
			::::Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. ] (]) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. ]&thinsp;] 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Please reread ], and especially ]. The suggestion that being a ''published academic on a subject'' constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of ], which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::as per {{redacted|]}} is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
			:::Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. ] (]) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to ]. ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
			:::
			:::
			:::If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. ] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of ] before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? ] (]) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::*Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for ] that arises as a result.
			::::::*With regards to ] has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the ). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
			::::::*AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for ''more'' SRM research in their day job {{redacted|encouragement of ]}}. Also, ] explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be ''against'' doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
			::::::*I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by ] on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
			::::::*Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). ] (]) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery or], but I'll respond anyway.
			::::::::I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
			::::::::Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I wish to clarify the relationship between the (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
			:::::Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was , for ten years, and is the l. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is , one of five authors of , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of . By quick count, of the other 14 authors on , one other is on the governing board, at least eight are , at least two are , and one is among .
			:::::In the other direction, of ESG's , eight have signed the .
			:::::The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. ] (]) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@], would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? ]&thinsp;] 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
			::::::For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. ] (]) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an ''oversight'' on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I agree that a lot of time was wasted. Did you count ]? No discussion was needed, the infobox could just have stayed on the talk as proposed by me, following advice by ] and ] as a possible solution when an infobox is not wanted in the article. I thought that was a good solution, but if you are so strongly against it, I will not do that again. I don't have to stop adding one to a composer someone else created, because I never did that (as far as I remember). --] (]) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
			*:This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. ]&thinsp;] 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::::ps: for those who don't look at that discussion (but it's enlightening, promised), here is the link to the advice mentioned (which was removed in the meantime): --] (]) 11:56, 11 June 2013 (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)
	::::::::::::Gerda: So are you willing to stop doing this? That would be positive. '']]'' 06:33, 12 June 2013 (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 stopped with Wagner, - that one experience of a "discussion" was enough for life, ]? See also ], --] (]) 09:42, 12 June 2013 (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)
	*Bach cantatas are among my key areas of expertise, although I hardly ever visit the articles in that topic. I have to side with Slim et al. here: those articles are far better off without an infobox. I have a bunch of reasons. Let me know if you want me to list them. ] ] 02:17, 13 June 2013 (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)
	:*It might be helpful to list the reasons, Tony, if you have time. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:24, 13 June 2013 (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)
	::*Yes; but I expressed these reasons—or something like them—at infobox discussions some time ago, so I'm not sure I'm adding anything new. I'm not per se against infoboxes in ''every'' situation, but for articles on complex-music composers and their works they add nothing and risk detracting from the articles. They present packaged and stripped-down information that is often not useful and is sometimes misleading outside a larger context ("Related" in the Mass in B minor box, for example). They can't help but repeat information that is or should be treated in proper context and detail in the main text. Why repeat it? Who is going to flip from one article to the next just to read the infobox info? We shouldn't encourage superficial reading, if the motivation exists for it (which I doubt for readers of these topics). They sacrifice what would often be an opportunity for an image right at the top, larger than can reasonably fit into an infobox. And I find the meta-data argument most uncompelling, I have to say. Infoboxes might be tolerable for pop-music articles and pop-bios, but not for complex-music topics, where greater reading motivation can be assumed. ] ] 09:11, 14 June 2013 (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)
	:::*Tony, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Would you mind having this discussion at a more appropriate venue, for example ], where these infoboxes were ], or the template talk of {{tl|infobox Bach composition}}. Please don't miss the Wikipedias de-fr-nn, where every Bach cantata has an infobox, --] (]) 09:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
			*:::::if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at ] think it would be easier to avoid.
	:::*Thanks for explaining, Tony. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
			*:::::opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
	::::* There's an unfortunate tendency to cram the infoboxes with unexplained stuff even in pop music articles. Look at ] (FA) for example. What is the giant list of "Associated acts" in the infobox telling you? ] (]) 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
			*:::::alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? ] (]) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on ] of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant ] and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't ] people or contacting their employers. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	==== Wagner for example ====
			*:@] I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	I am all interested in a good way forward. The past is shown here in a nutshell:
			*::This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. ] <sup>]</sup>] 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	"I am entirely against having a infobox for this article. Wagner's life and music is a very complex topic and I am certain that an infobox would damage the article by giving inappropriate or highly debatable prominence to some aspects, and/or by under-reporting other aspects. Moreover, Gerda, as you know, the whole issue of infoboxes is extremely ontroversial and the overwhelming opinion of editors on the Opera, Wagner, and Classical Music Projects is against having them.--Smerus (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2013 (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.
	(quoted from ] in which I was involved)
			*:::Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.
			*:::BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,
			*::::the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.
			*::::AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. ] (]) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.
			*:::::Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Does Wikimedian in Residence apply? ===
	When I read that I had an infobox ready in a sandbox. I put it on the talk (!) stating that it was not meant to be included in the article. There still was a discussion that would better be archived. I did not mind the manual archiving at all, .
			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)
	I will have to understand how an infobox would damage the article but simply accept that view. I don't add infoboxes to articles (!) where I expect controversy, - as far as I remember I never did that, so I can easily agree to the request just above. - I just added one more item to the ], feel free to take it to the Wagner talk, ] ;) --] (]) 06:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
			::I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. ] (]) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My situation is totally different to @]. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @] adjusting the page '''to favour her client''' (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. ] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the ] article ]. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per ].
			::Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding ]- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.
			::Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. ] (]) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. ] (]) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile ===
	:I suppose I wonder why, if an infobox is known to be controversial, it has to be placed on the talk page, rather than not introduced at all. Can you agree not to add infoboxes to articles (or talk pages) where you know it is going to cause a problem? If you would agree to that, that would be a start. If Andy will agree too, and if Nikki will agree not to remove them and not to follow Andy's or Gerda's contribs, the dispute will be over. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	:: I support the above modest proposal 100%.--] (]) 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
			<s>Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. {{Noping|EMsmile}} is a paid editor who violated ] - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight ''are highly disruptive'' - and that's notwithstanding the ''paid editing.'' Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. </s> Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. ] (]) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Gerda's part:
	::* The infobox didn't "have to be placed". It WAS placed because I saw the recommendation, as part of a solution (!): ". This link preceded the infobox on the talk, - not everybody saw that, if you belong to those please take another look. I said above that I will not do that again even if I don't understand why an infobox sitting quietly on a talk page would cause ANY problem, or how any infobox would "damage" an article.
	::* ]: I ask you formally to keep following my edits, - I need help with English and formalities. Just please don't revert a complete infobox , and consider to have mercy when I (it wasn't often).
	::*Andy: he can't contribute at the moment nor for days to come. --] (]) 07:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
			:'''<s>Oppose block, support ]ing EMS for almost ], ]ing AJL for aggressive interactions</s>, warning ITK for ].'''- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.
	:::Gerda, the possibility of placing infoboxes was not a 'recommendation', it was a 'thinking-out-of-the-box' suggestion for consideration by ], which indeed the latter subsequently withdrew. It had no endorsements or I think even comments by any other editors or Misplaced Pages fora. You were perfectly aware that the Wagner article was coming up for front-page featuring, and you were perfectly aware of the feelings of myself and other editors about info-boxes for the article; indeed as you mention you participated in the FA discussion, and you also participated in the TFA discussion. I am aware of the significant contributions you have made in many Misplaced Pages articles, which I unreservedly acknowledge, and thus I would never have credited that you had the naivety not to imagine or foresee that posting an infobox on the Wagner talk page, especially at this time, without prior discussion, would provoke animated debate; and moreover to realise that such discussion would inevitably bring in the ''causeurs'' who feed on such issues, whether or not they have any interst or contribution to make to the articles concerned. Clearly, I must accept your word that you had never anticipated this; but I am sure you have learnt from the experience. Best, --] (]) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
			:the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically ] suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group ] (]) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Smerus, thanks for thoughts and feelings, - Fact: It was not Nikkimaria's thinking, she quoted Newyorkbrad, another respected user. - I will try to learn to anticipate feelings better, and there will be no next time, as said twice above. Thank you for a constructive GA review, I enjoy collaboration here, especially with you "after Wagner"! --] (]) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
			::From ] {{tq|WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages}} - this seems not to be the case here. ] (]) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.
			:::want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi applies] (]) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by ] - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. ] (]) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. {{U|Bluethricecreamman}} has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether {{U|EMsmile}} was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* '''Oppose''' this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see ] apologize for the ] that occurred. ] (]) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. ] (]) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*'''Strong oppose''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in ''simple ignorance'' (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not ]).
			::That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, '''it fails a DUCK test''', and ''looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor''. What I see is a properly disclosed ] editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. ''These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors.'' Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't ] going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :]&thinsp;] 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: <small>((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above)</small> 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, ''otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month'', 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that ''AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI.'' They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including ''very questionable'' off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where ] was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT ''recent'' contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a '''grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI''' (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month ''for over 11 years'')... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either ] or ]. ]&thinsp;] 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Maybe everyone gets ]s at this point and we move on? ] (]) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.
			:::::However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for '''potential civil-POV'' which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like might come off is overly whitewashing, but {{tq|China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations.}} but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does <u>call into need for a closer look</u>, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. ]&thinsp;] 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group
			::mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. ] (]) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Strong support'''. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, ] applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that ] only ''strongly discourages'' paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --] (]) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose and IMO unthinkable''' They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Redux===
			*:{{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)
	I don't know whether this discussion is worth continuing. Whether Gerda is agreeing isn't clear to me, Nikkimaria sees the issue as mainly one for Andy to respond to (see discussion ), and Andy hasn't been posting, although he did email Wikimedia-l today so he may be back soon. Perhaps we should wait for his return. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
			*::Personally, I am much more concerned about '''un'''declared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet ] . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. ] (]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I meant meat puppet. ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Tentative oppose''' - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
			:*Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates''' with no opinion on indef block at this time.
			From what I can see, looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the ]: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages". More broadly, we have a movement-wide (emphasis in the original).
	:Can we ask Gerda, Nikkimaria and Andy Mabbett to make statements in turn, clarifying whether they will (1) stop edit warring (e.g. by observing ]), (2) stop provoking other editors by adding or removing infoboxes against local consensus, (3) respect the results of past and future centralized discussions on boxes, and (4) agree not to radically alter or develop boxes that have already been created by compromise and consensus (typically at the project level).
			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.
	:If we do have satisfactory undertakings from all three, I suggest we end this here — if not, the alternative to be topic bans. '']]'' 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
			It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I received an email from Andy yesterday saying that it will be at least five more days until he may edit again, and my personal impression is that he should take it easy, no pressure, after recovery.
	:: My statements are above, repeating:
	::: I didn't edit war and don't plan to do so. (1)
	::: I will not add infoboxes to articles where I expect conflict. (2, 3)
	::: To please editors, I will not even add an infobox to the talk page of an article where I expect conflict, although I still don't understand what can be wrong about an infobox on a talk page. (2, 3)
	::: I don't understand (4), and certainly not what it has to do with this discussion. (I once expanded an infobox to make it compatible with another one that another editor chose to use it instead of the suitable one, - is that what you call "radically alter"?)
	::: I ask Nikkimaria to follow my edits to improve English and formatting, but please not revert an infobox without prior discussion.
	::: From Andy's last email: he invites (uninvolved) admins to follow his edits, as SandyGeorgia suggested ]. That should solve 1–4.
	:: May I remind that this was a initiative about stalking, not topics, and I question whose satisfaction should be established in a conclusion? I thought this was over and could be archived. I vaguely remember that I was told "Be bold" when I started editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, --] (]) 06:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
			I looked at ] last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics '''written 73% of the article''', in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
	Someone needs to write ]. ] (]) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I see a request by Kleinzach on Gerda's page to post here, why do I not see such a request on Nikki's page? If it's there and I've missed it, sorry, but I'm not seeing it. ] ] 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::You are absolutely right. I got distracted Just as I was about to post something to Nikkimaria. I will do it now. Thanks for the reminder. --'']]'' 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC){{Done}} '']]'' 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think Kleinzach's suggested solution would work for this dispute, assuming Andy is amenable. ] (]) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you. I think a statement from you would be <u>positive</u>, just as Gerda's one (above) at least moves us in the right direction. Whether Andy Mabbett is 'amenable' or not is up to him — other editors can draw their own conclusions based what he says when he gets back to WP. --'']]'' 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
	<s>The section started below is off topic or at least off process. We are here to stop the edit warring, not to start it up again. It isn't helping. May we collapse it? --'']]'' 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)</s> Too late. ] should apply, but the self-fulfilling '''''Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties''''' already has lift off. '']]'' 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
			<small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small>
	===Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties===
			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.
	As some here will recall, a number of weeks ago I made a drive-by comment on the talk page ] talk page regarding what I consider to be the inevitability of infoboxes on classical music articles. Profanity was used in the reply by one of the anti-infobox parties, which to my mind is about as unwelcoming a response to a first-time editor in a particular article as I can recall in a half-decade of being a Wikipedian, so I brought my very first case to ANI. The anti-infobox clique fended off meaningful sanctions, so I put several pages on my watchlist and took a step back.
			] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	I continue to feel there is a serious problem with the anti-infobox people, who insist on having their way and employ a number of, to my thinking, questionable methods to ensure that that happens. Indeed, in the reason this matter is again at ANI, ''an admin is stalking an editor''; this means ] creates ''a deliberate chilling effect.'' It was pointed out earlier in this thread that admin Nikkimaria has been blocked by other admins, and I will point out most recently in the service of the anti-infobox goal at ]. where a infobox deletion was disingenuously labeled "clean-up" in an edit summary. This is one unacceptable example of the sort of thing that will most likely continue until the community gets to the "sick of it" stage, which I hope we have reached.
			:Hello ], we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of ]. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (] (which is an alliance), nor the concept ] itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website.
	'''I suggest strong action against Nikkimaria''' - This administrator has been blocked several times for edit warring. I include consideration of de-adminship. It is clear to me something must be done in this case. I do not buy the "But they didn't abuse the tools" argument because an admin wields power and must be squeaky clean in their actions.
			:FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: ] and ], then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).
			:FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.
			:If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for ] apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from ]? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?
			:Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.
			:Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks ''in this thread'' but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." ] (]) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't ] or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are ], which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.{{pb}}Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact , which states that {{tq|he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community.}} This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". ] (] · ]) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to ], or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. ] (]) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::did report to ] ] (]) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they ''do'' make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we ''do'' allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. ''edits'' that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::] put this back into our court. ] (]) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* '''Oppose''' indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. ] (]) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile ===
	'''I suggest a strong warning for Andy''' - He is hardly blameless either, but is not culpable to the effect NM is.
			<small>I added this heading just now to break up a section that was getting long ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 18:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
			:::<small> The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.</small>True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its <s>direct</s> affiliates, broadly construed. This ''obviously'' include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from ''citing'' the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''A Misplaced Pages-wide Rfc on infoboxes.''' This grinding infobox debate will continue to be an endless bone of contention until the root cause is addressed. Let the entire Misplaced Pages community decide if infoboxes are ok for every appropriate article, not just a small number of editors with a rigid agenda. If an Rfc doesn't solve the issue, then the last resort will have to be ArbCom. Let's make a dedicated push to get this nagging problem over with, and move on to more worthy pursuits. ]]] 11:48, 16 June 2013 (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>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.
			::::::For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. ] (]) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at ] violated ] quite egregiously. Do you disagree?
			:::::::Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I ''tried to'' make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.
			::::::::Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."
			::::::::I believe my edits for the ] article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. ] (]) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page ''on the topic of ESG and its affiliates''. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a ''symptom'' of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like at SRM and at ] (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	: I have the obvious social handicap as far as ] is concerned of not being partial to infoboxes; but is it that alone which prevents me from comprehending the logically consequential link between his first two proposals and the third? As a Jew I'm not entirely unfamiliar with being classed as a member of an evil minority determined to destabilize the universe; now I find I'm the member of another similar 'clique'. Perhaps ] can tell me where I can find psychiatric help; or is it just, as ] advises, that I need to seek ''Untergang''? We seem to be dealing here with a classic case, on ]'s part, of the declension: 'I have principles; you have obsessions; they are an anti-social conspiracy'. I don't disagree that in principle both Nikkimaria and Mr. Mabbett should receive some raps; but ]'s pompous and portentous heading 'Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties' seems to indicate that his scope is not focussed on the issue here, and that his conclusions may not be entirely dispassionate. Worriedly, --] (]) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
	::"Pompous and portentous." Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable. Perhaps we could have some commentary here from those a bit less involved than Smerus, who in my view is in clear violation of ] in the service of his agenda. For the record: I have created a very modest article on a bit of classical music, ]. ''Notice there is no info box.'' I don't give a fig either way, you see, and attempts to paint me as partisan are merely a smear, which I strongly resent. What we need to do is fix the problems I have outlined, not indulge in "clever" attempts to change the subject. See how this matter is being gamed, folks? ]]] 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: Gaming - an interesting allegation. This thread started because a big boy accused a big girl of bullying. Neither of the two are strangers to knockabout stuff on Misplaced Pages. And I find it difficult to believe that either suffered sleepless nights because of this discussion. But ] says that the outcome '''must''' include a WP wide debate on infoboxes. Gaming? Changing the subject? - As Schopenhauer says somewhere, when we blame others, we are blaming ourselves. The extent to which I am 'involved': I have made it clear here as elsewhere that I don't like infoboxes. I have never deleted an infobox. I do not want yet another debate on infoboxes as a whole because: 1) if it comes to a resolution either one way or the other, it will drive away from WP a substantial body of experienced editors and 2) if it comes, as in the past, to no decision, then a lot of hot air and time will have been wasted. There are better things to do in life. We can live with this sort of trivial knockabout stuff, if it's the price we have to pay for keeping everyone on board. Best, --] (]) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
			:IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::"Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable." ] wrote, "pompous and portentous heading". That's not a personal attack; it's a description of a heading. "Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties" and "The anti-infobox clique" are closer to personal attacks, although I wouldn't classify them as such either. Get real. ] (]) 03:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
			:<small>(involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before)</small>. To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. ] (]) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	: As in the former case, I think no actions are required. I like to work "amicably" with all editors involved (thank you for the phrase, Smerus!), and I do (thank you, Smerus and Nikkimaria). Putting people in a "clique" or "gang" does not help. I can speak only for myself: I am nobodies follower here, the spirit is my own. If someone can explain to me why putting an infobox on a talk page with the intention to keep it there is a "digression", they are welcome. Talk pages are for talk, there's "freedom of speech", right? - I think this whole thread can be closed. Andy, who wanted satisfaction, cannot edit, those who want different satisfaction can start a thread of their own. --] (]) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
			::Hi Femke, I've modified the ] article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion.
	::My dear Gerda, in my view the answer to your question is a simple one. ''It's about power: the power to tell others what to do.'' Heaven forbid editors should ever have to contemplate one of your infoboxes on even a talk page, oh, how defiant of right-thinking! Someone might get the idea that an infobox could just be an asset to those casual readers interested in classical music, and copy and paste one elsewhere. No, you must be condemned and attacked as "disruptive" and the offending infobox cleansed away by rapid archiving or outraged removal, and various semi-threats made to silence anyone pointing out inconvenient facts. I have seen cliques before in my years here, but this one takes the cake. Or as a warning to me back in April goes on my talkpage (with apologies to the editor who wrote it, for my reposting it here): '''It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them!''' I say again: I really don't care that much about the short term outcome on infoboxes on classical music articles, as I am an eventualist and believe it all will get right over time, seeing as the vast majority of Misplaced Pages articles have infoboxes. What offends me is the rampant Wiki-bullying on display here, mostly by the anti-infobox faction who I deem morally bankrupt because of the way they try to push people around. It would be so much easier to walk away from this absurd mess and not deal with any of it, but the fact is that this no-infobox mess is an ugly boil on Misplaced Pages that is demonstrably driving away good editors, as you have seen. Again, power-mongering is the core of the problem here, exemplified by an admin, ] who follows Andy around the 'pedia, but also others who I believe exhibit a clear ] mentality towards Andy, and you, and now me for daring to stand up to them. What kind of an online encyclopedia are we to be? That's the deeper question here, and the attempts above to inject ethnicity, crypto-threats like "interesting allegation" etc, etc. are merely transparent devices to shame and blame. '''Conduct a well-publicized Wiki-wide Rfc on infoboxes.''' Nothing else directly attacks the root cause of this deeply unpleasant and ultimately absurd ongoing issue, although the alternative is to just file a case at ArbCom and see if that body cares to pour through years of edits to discern the long-term pattern, which I contend would reveal a breathtaking architecture of outright abuse. To do nothing just kicks the can down the road until finally a reckoning comes. ]]] 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
			::I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the ] article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the ] article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page ]. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) ] (]) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::"It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them!" There goes a "wall" of personal attacks and straw men (which you did not write, but apparently approve of). I notice that you have made the "bullying" accusation again; when you previously accused me of bullying, you weren't even capable of producing any evidence for your claim.
			:::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.
	:::Editors may also like to note another straw man in the quote above: you omit to mention the fact that we ''have'' arguments: "has fought to control the debate through '''canvassing''', '''cementing it within their own nonbinding policy''', and generally '''bullying those who disagree with them'''. " ] (]) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
			:::At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a ] to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for ]" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be '''extended to future employers''' too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per Femke. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' and will withdraw my proposal above. ] (]) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed''' <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: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)
			*'''Support as proposer''' and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''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. ]&thinsp;] 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. ] (]) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Agreed! ]&thinsp;] 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Voluntary restrictions===
	A number of stalemates that were probably similar have been documented in guidelines, for example ] or ]. I see the MOS lead itself has the catch-all provision "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." ] (]) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{Ping|EMsmile}} Just clarifying
			*When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force.
			*Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits?
			Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	As a long-term observer largely uninvolved with the issue (all but one of my peer-reviewed articles, IIRC, has an infobox, and I have no particular interest in classical music), I think your assessment is almost completely wrongheaded, Jusdafax. The current state of play for infoboxes, which I think is largely reflected in policy (and would probably be borne out in an RfC) is that they are appropriate for some, indeed, most articles; inappropriate for a very few; and that there is some gray area of articles in between for which an infobox may or may not be appropriate. The provisions about forming consensus on an article-by-article basis and so forth are intended to encourage rational discussion and consensus formation among interested editors. Of course, the "problem" with that approach is that editors might decide *not* to have an infobox on a given article, which for Pigsonthewing is an unacceptable outcome. He, with the occasional aid and support of other technically-inclined editors, has spent years filibustering these "gray area" articles to try to prevent discussions from reaching the no-infobox answer. (One of the more ingenious tactics that I recall was to show up at an article, declare that the author's opinion could be discounted because of ], that of WikiProject participants could be discounted because of ], and that as the last person left standing, his opinion determined consensus and the article should have an infobox.) This insistence on shoving infoboxes into articles where they aren't generally desired, to demonstrate that no editor or group of editors can block them, earned him a ] last year.
			:Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions:
	This is not a new phenomenon. He was ] by ArbCom in 2007 for abusive conduct, largely surrounding his attempts to...force infoboxes onto articles about opera and composers! SIX. YEARS. Trying to make these WikiProject kiss his ring and accept that he could force an infobox into any article he chose, regardless of their arguments. Frankly, looking over the behavior complained of in that ArbCom case (not only music infoboxes, but the use of coord templates) and seeing that he's largely recapitulated it within the past year, it's a wonder he's escaped more serious sanctions.
			:* To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree.
			:* The second point: Yes, the PE arrangement was to improve the ] article in several ways and in collaboration with others: one was just general improvements, structure, clarity, updated references, images, wikilinks and so forth. The other was to make the article more balanced because we felt that the current discourse about risks of SRM research was not very well described and relevant publications had not been cited. There was already a section on "criticism" when I started editing the article but as per ] it wasn't well done (in my opinion). I started discussing this on the talk page of the SRM article in May 2024. There were some page watchers who agreed, some who disagreed - which is normal. And yes, I agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in future. Could I clarify this small point: When you say "ask someone else to put in any edits" how would that work in practice? Would pinging someone on the talk page, e.g. you, be acceptable or would people find that annoying and "pushy"? ] (]) 08:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::P.S. regarding the point made by Femke above ("You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago."): the sentence in question on the in fact says (bolding added by me): "The Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance '''research community'''." This sentence actually means mainly to try to get accreditations at UN conferences for ESG-related scholars, who can then enter UN meetings as representatives of the ESG Foundation. It is not the representation of the “project”, which has no legal entity, no positions, no fixed income, etc. - I have made some changes to my user profile page too in order to explain it better. Hope this helps to clarify. ] (]) 12:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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)
	Now, all that said, I am concerned about some of the actions on the other side, more so as regards interference with Gerda's use of infoboxes in her articles than any response to Pigsonthewing. But the major "chilling effect" here has been that created by his behavior, which regards good-faith discussion and compromise by other parties as way stations to getting his way in its entirety. Deal with that problem, and you'll go a long way towards clearing the unpleasant atmosphere in this area. ] (]) 06:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
			== Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza ==
	: I don't see how you come to the conclusion that Andy's behaviour results in a chilling effect. There would have to be demonstration of some obvious trend not to participate for fear of reprisal for that to be the case. What reprisal is supposed? The worst that happens is a talk page thread, and the occasional reinstatement of an infobox that is invariably summarily removed again the next time one of the bloc happens to chance upon it. It's unfortunate that certain WikiProjects take such umbrage with occasionally being asked to actually explain themselves to outsiders (and no, "we decided this a long time ago, and we worked hard on these articles, and you're hurting our fee-fees" is not an explanation), but there's plainly only one party here who genuinely has to worry about reprisal (including but not limited to flagrant personal attacks, hounding and general degradation on any soapbox that's handy, along with being threatened with a new topic ban every other day). ] (]) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
			*{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}}
	===Advice from my daughter===
			*{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}}
	My daughter visited for father's day, and we went for a walk. We talked about a number of things, but I asked her for advice on a Misplaced Pages issue. I couldn't give her all the background—we were only out for two hours, but I covered the basics, including ], and ]. When I mentioned that Andy had documented 22 cases where his edit was reverted, but only three edits were followed by a post to the talk page, and none included a response by Nikkimaria, she suggested that we tell each party that they should be using the talk page to reach consensus. If one does regularly, and the other does not, we will be able to identify the problematic editor. My initial instincts were to suggest that this was too simple, but now I'm wondering why. While I won't pretend it will make the entire problem go away, it seems like a reasonable request. Does anyone disagree?--]] 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
	:The situation has been clearly explained, but it's difficult to see unless you have participated in one of the punch-ups on the talk page of a contested article. The problem is that people who are unwilling or unable to make useful contributions to a serious encyclopedic article on a composer nevertheless feel an urge to add an infobox. Since everyone is equal, the view of an editor new to an article is just as valid as that of the editors who created and maintain the article—in fact the outsider's view is ''more'' valid because the creators and maintainers are just violators of ] who do not understand the ] that all articles must comply with technical standards. I have seen a couple of the discussions and they are extremely unhelpful because editors are human, and they don't like being pushed around by people with an agenda—good editors become frustrated and stop editing. It only takes a moment for someone to add an infobox, and there are lots of people who like to do things like that, and then the editors who build the content have to spend another six hours in pointless back-and-forth. There is no good solution to a problem like this because the infobox adders can rely on relentless pressure to win (there are more of them than there are content builders), and those on the other side can only grind their teeth. One not-good solution would be to have the ultimate RfC to decide whether it is mandatory for every article to have an infobox. If yes, add them. If no, block those who persist past 1RR. ] (]) 23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
	*]: Yes, in fact, I do disagree. The editors involved have been drowning one by one in these discussions. Here is a list of music-related box infobox discussions since February:
			{{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.
	{{Quote box2|halign=left|bgcolor=ivory|fontsize=100%|quote=
	'''Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI)'''
	*] Report by ], 2 April 2013
	*] Report by ], 5 June 2013 against ].
			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)
	'''User pages'''
			:Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] and ] Rfc plan started by ], 5 April 2013
			::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.
	'''Classical Music Project'''
			*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'''.
	*] new box proposed by Kleinzach, 16 March 2013 (see also ])
			**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:
	*] by Kleinzach, 23 April 2013
			**{{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)
	'''Composition articles'''
	*] Infobox discussion started by ], 30 March 2013.
	*] Infobox discussion started by Andy Mabbett, 30 May 2013.
	*] Infobox discussion started by ] 27 May
			: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)
	'''Composer articles'''
			::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)
	*] infobox proposal by ], 27 February 2013
			:::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)
	*]: discussion started by Kleinzach, 4 March 2013
			::::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)
	*] discussion started by Gerda Arendt, 5 March 2013
	*] infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 21 March 2013
	*] infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 25 March 2013
	*] ‘no infobox’ proposal by Gerda Arendt, 16 May 2013
			== Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 ==
	'''MOS'''
			*{{userlinks|Manannan67}}
	*] protest against collapsing infoboxes started by Andy Mabbett, 6 March 2013
			] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ),
			most recently , when I discovered a they placed on . The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did one early warning from the talk page. ] (]) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			: The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to ] which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. ] (]) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Templates for deletion (TFD)'''
			::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)
	*] now closed as keep. nomination by Andy Mabbett 15 March 2013
			::: 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)
	*] proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013
			::::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)
	*] proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013}}
			::::: 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)
	{{clear}}
			::::::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)
	IMO a <u>]-based approach</u> would be more practical. Of course, we can have talk page discussions when necessary, but not used as an attrition tactic to wear out the music editors. '']]'' 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
			== Naniwoofg ==
	*@ ]: as regards the issue of this thread, yes, your daughter's proposal is of course highly relevant. (What a way to spend Father's Day!). I don't myself see the point or relevance of pursuing the infobox theme further under this discussion.--] (]) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*The issue of this thread - a little reminder - is NOT the infobox. I invite everybody to look at the (18?) linked discussions. The cantata ]: The discussion was constructive, the infobox improved, Smerus reviewed the article and approved as it GA: peace can be so simple if we respect each other and talk instead of revert, - that seems to be daughter's advice. For those who still think this thread is about infobox: project opera introduced their optional use for operas yesterday, the template {{tl|infobox opera}} was developed with Andy's great help and has a ], --] (]) 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: Thanks, Kleinzach for those links. While I am aware that the infobox wars have been contentious, I haven't read all of the background, and that is a useful resource when it comes time to revisit the infobox question. However, that's not why we are here. As Gerda pointed out, the issue in this thread is not infoboxes, nor even the broader problems as pointed out by Johnuniq. The issue is that Andy alleges he was being stalked, and wants to know what the community plans to do about that. Andy points to 22 instances where edits of his were reverted, but the evidence is that neither he nor Nikkimaria followed up as required by accepted community practice in almost all of the cases. I am a firm believer that the community ought to address the underlying issues (but not here) as we ought to be resolving the policy questions, not just papering over the symptoms. However our narrow remit at the moment is to determine whether Andy's claims have merit, and if so what response is appropriate. My view is that, in view of the failure of both parties to follow accepted community protocols, there's nothing to be done here. I do appreciate that much virtual ink has been spilled over the underlying questions in other places, but the burden is on Andy to provide the evidence to support the claim, and I find the claim wanting. I think it is time to close this thread.--]] 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I feel the strong need to emphasize again that, for an admin with a checkered past who is clearly subject to ], it is not ok to stalk Andy's edits, no matter how much he has blundered in the past. That's the immediate core problem here (aside from the overriding infobox stuff), and to do nothing just means more time wasted down the road. Fix this now, please. ]]] 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::WP:INVOLVED is not relevant in this situation because INVOLVED concerns an involved admin using, or proposing to use, administrative tools. The actual problem is that a small team of technical editors are unnecessarily disrupting content builders—''that'' is the problem which should be fixed. ] (]) 11:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Day by day I hop this thread will archive. "The problem" in it is NOT the infobox, NOT "technical editors are unnecessarily disrupting content builders", - the problem is that one editor feels stalked by another, and I of all people certainly know how that feels. With other problems, go to other threads. 18 discussions have been listed above as "drowning" content work, please look yourself if that is true, I don't see it. Show me one of those where an infobox was added to an article in a way that could be called "disruptive". Perhaps check your premises. Are you aware that ] can't even edit, while Nikkimaria ] ]? --] (]) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Each of the two links at "keeps reverting" points to a discussion about an infobox. I have only dipped my toes into this dispute (and that was perhaps six months ago) and have no particular passion for either side, but the situation is clear: some editors LIKE infoboxes, and LIKE putting facts into them, while other editors DONTLIKE infoboxes and DONTLIKE what they regard as superfluous facts. This ANI report was started by an editor who regards someone checking his edits as stalking, but it's not possible for anything short of a three-month arbcom case to decide whether editor A (who is known to have been enthusiastically promoting infoboxes literally for years) is more or less at fault than editor B (who is known to have been enthusiastically resisting the promotion of infoboxes). ] (]) 23:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:@SP, nice idea, but there's a simpler way...count the number of edits to this thread (main and subthreads) by Andy and Nikki. The numbers will tell you who's been trying to find a solution and who's been blowing this off. It continues to boggle my mind at how long and hard users will argue over the simplest of things here. If people would behave the way that had to at work to keep their job, we wouldn't have these problems. If wiki had a DR system that worked we wouldn't have these problems either. There are many reasons for this and I see no solution. The United Nations can solve things quicker and easier than wiki can, and that's scary. ] ] 02:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::There is no solution other than a central decision that infoboxes ''are'' or ''are not'' mandatory. The time an editor is prepared to spend arguing their case at ANI is not a reasonable way to measure whether one editor is stalking another. ] (]) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{User|Naniwoofg}} has been the subject of a complaint at ] for issues involving images and ]. Finally posting this here so some sort of action could be taken per the comments at the aforementioned section. Note that said complaint includes refusal to respond to warnings and related stuff. ] (]) 12:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Suggested close redux - with remedies ===
	From what I can see, the basis of this case is a complex battle between teams of dedicated turf warriors. While I applaud Sphilbrick for making a real effort to look through the history of the battle in a short (couple-of-days-long) examination, I think there is general agreement that the two main root issues can only properly be addressed by the ArbCom. These two issues being (1) what is considered best practices regarding the placement of infoboxes in classical music articles, and (2) which if any of the main turf warriors have been acting in violation of Misplaced Pages's rules on collegiality and should therefore be sanctioned. In this AN/I, there has been a lot of sniping back and forth but very very little input from either of the figures in the central discussion (10 posts from Andy and 3 from Nikki). A casual reader would wrongly assume that Gerda (at 27 posts) is on trial here.
			:Can we get a follow-up on this? @] has failed to respond to all inquiries on affected article talk pages, their user talk page, and the Tambayan PH talk page. We have been reverting their unexplained and unusual edits to the infoboxes of several Philippine road and building articles back and forth for the past few days. ] (] • ]) 07:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	So If the central issues cannot be addressed by AN/I then it's time to close this discussion, however I do think that there are stop-gap measures that AN/I can introduce that would greatly improve the situation by defanging the central warriors in this turf battle. I strongly recommend imposing a <u>2-way interaction ban between Nikki and Andy</u> for now (narrowly construed - only regarding the infobox issue - neither can revert the other, neither can participate in an infobox discussion that the other is engaged in). The benefit of this solution is that it will halt the most problematic aspects of the battle - the slow-paced reverting back and forth, the potential for edit stalking, and the further expression of their contrary and absolutist editorial POVs. And it will also provide a clear impetus for both editors to bring the underlying case to ArbCom as several reasonable editors at this AN/I have previously suggested. If Arbitration determines either Andy or Nikki to be entirely blameless then they can certainly lift the interaction ban, modify it, or take other action, but this issue needs to be addressed because this whole thing is giving Misplaced Pages a black eye. I'm sure it would make some anti-Misplaced Pages blogger's day to discover that this kind of thing is going on at WikiProject Classical Music of all places.
			:'''Support''' sanctioning this user. One latest questionable edit is on ] article, which . Naniwoofg claimed to had updated the infobox images, but the user used an image of the ] ''before the 2019 renovation''. I replaced Naniwoofg's choice of the church image with the one image taken after the renovation. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 09:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) ==
	Let's force them to drop the stick for now by imposing this stop-gap interaction ban and then wash our hands of it to allow them to build their case for ArbCom. -] (]) 12:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Cherkash}}
	: No, I believe this summary (and many of those above as well) entirely misses the point and mischaracterizes the issues, which go beyond the infobox one-- having more to do with groups of technical editors who target in particular but not exclusively Featured articles to impose personal preferences against guidelines and consensus, in some past cases using socks to evade detection and scrutiny while moving from one suite of articles to another to install personal preferences, and doing this against the consensus of WikiProjects and established content contributors, who know the topics, edit the articles frequently, and can and do explain why these technically minded edit warriors are frequently negatively impacting content. Featured articles are targeted because by installing personal preferences there, editors can more easily force those preferences on other articles. This has been a problem for a long time, and the names that pop up in these discussions are often familiar. <p>Infoboxes are not the only area where this occurs, and we most certainly have lost valuable editors in the past when groups of technical editors have suddenly appeared on articles to impose their personal preferences, be it citation style, formatting, dates, infoboxes, lists, whatever. Anyone unaware of the number of valuable content editors we have lost to this very issue-- and the effect on Featured articles in particular-- likely isn't aware enough of the particulars here to be weighing in effectively. It is music and infoboxes today: it was something else six months ago, something else a year ago, it will be something else six months from now, but those who cannot or do not add content have long found ways to impose their personal preferences on the Project over the objections of those who actually build the content. <p>Because PotW wants to characterize this as a stalking issue doesn't make it so. ArbCom has weighed in recently on what constitutes stalking, and my read on that (which of course could be wrong FWIW) is that it is not stalking for admins to follow edits of known problematic editors who act against guideline, policy and consensus. An interaction ban will NOT stop the underlying issue here: what would be more helpful would be for more admins to follow the edits of the technical edit warriors who breach consensus and guideline to install their personal preferences so that the extent of this problem will be revealed. <p>Too may good content editors have already left because of this problem ... and most of them were involved at the FA level. Little is to be gained by mentioning departed editors by name, but this issue is most certainly a factor in my decreased editing: I have little inclination to constantly deal with bands of editors who show up on articles to install their personal preferences when those preferences negatively impact content. This is not only about infoboxes-- it is about tagteaming and content editors being chased off. Arbcom is not needed: more admin eyes following the problem should solve it.<p> Trouts to all of the editors who used inflammatory sub-headings above: do not the instructions here call for neutral sub-headings ??? ] (]) 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see ], ]). </br>
	::From reading the above (and not being familiar at all with the gritty details of the warring at the WP:CM articles), though, it sounds like this particular issue - infoboxes within Classical Music articles - is a known and unsettled matter and that there are large numbers of legitimate content editors on ''both'' sides who view this trivial issue as worth crusading over. I'm not sure it makes any sense to dismiss the editors on one side of the disagreement as ne'er-do-well "technical editors" and to declare the others to be good "content editors". The facts don't seem to bear out this conclusion. It sounds like a large-scale discussion of the underlying issue (outside of AN/I) is what is required in order to pinpoint consensus which can then be applied to the relevant articles. Regarding the tensions between editors based on behavior, ArbCom does sound like the only solution since AN/I doesn't have the time resources to deal with it. The best way AN/I can help in my view is to contain the battle (reverting, stalking, POV-pushing talk page disruption) by imposing the above suggested 2-way interaction ban (at least temporarily until Arbitration has occurred). With a history stretching back several years, it doesn't sound like this problem is simply going to go away on its own. And I think that the increase of administrative stalking/attention on one side rather than the other is only a means to drive away those editors deemed to be on the "wrong side" of the argument. A narrowly-construed 2-way interaction ban applied only between Andy and Nikki is unlikely in my view to drive away content editors or to have a chilling effect on content edits. -] (]) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: Still and again ... the infobox matter has been settled several times, in several places, so some groups turn instead to making individual articles into battlegrounds to advance personal preferences, while content editors who are respecting consensus and guideline are overwhelmed by folks who tagteam and have no involvement with those articles, wanting to install their own preferences. And it is not only infoboxes ... it is that today, classical music today, but something else each time the same editors bring their personal preferences to bear on articles. Preventing admins from doing something about this is not the way to go; admins, please start adminning the issue by becoming aware of the same editors who frequently override consensus to install personal stylistic preferences on articles they don't even regularly edit. It's been going on long enough. There is no need to characterize a "wrong side" or "right side"; previous RFCs and guidelines are clear enough. I don't buy the argument that admins don't have the "time or resources" to deal with it-- awareness is enough to begin dealing with it. Why do certain editors appear en masse on articles they have never edited to install personal preferences ?? ] (]) 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::What I find particularly galling about this is that a few years ago Giano came up with a perfectly good compromise in ], a partially collapsed infobox that allows for larger images, but even that was unacceptable to PoTW. Nevertheless I used it successfully in a recent FAC, ]. ] ] 17:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::: I don't know that anyone disagrees with the notion that this discussion has more than one level. One level is whether our policy is sufficiently clear on usage of infoboxes, but as SandyGeorgia points out, that summarization is too coarse, and masks other issues. However, one other level is the behavior issue, which is the original claim, that of stalking. I'm not convinced that the content issues have yet been fully resolved, but this is not the place for content resolution. Nor is Arbcom, so I'm not following the claim that this will have to go to Arbcom. They don't deal with content issues.
			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.
	::::: ANI is for behavior issues. The alleged behavior is stalking, with a list of 22 reverts as evidence. Yet, as SandyGeorgia points out, it is not prohibited to follow the edits of someone who is believed to be violating policies and guidelines. Andy presumably believes it is stalking, because he thinks he is editing within policy. Nikkimaria presumably continues to reverts because she believes policy supports her position. That's why I think the behavior claims should be closed, as two good faith editor both believe they are editing according to policy. Separately, and elsewhere, we ought to revisit the policy questions, but that's for another venue. This is ANI, where we attempt to determine whether behavior requires admonishment or more. I think both parties should be urged to cite policy when adding or reverting, and go to the talk page more, but I don't see any justification for blocks of either party. Let's close this so we can address real issues.--]] 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg
	:::::: ANI is indeed for behaviour issues. This was an opportunity to get three high octane editors to moderate their behaviour. If that doesn’t happen — and it could be done by imposing a simple ''']''' — then we will all have been wasting our time. What is the message? It’s fine to be an aggressive edit warrior – so long as you do it skilfully, Mabbett-Nikki-Gerda style. --'']]'' 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.
	::::::: 1RR is ineffective when tag-teaming is involved; it only gives an advantage to those who call in their buddies to continue reverting (I've never seen Nikkimaria travel with a pack). ] (]) 03:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::If Nikkimaria was the sole champion of her side of the argument then this would be a non-issue. She could get slapped on the wrist for disruption and we could move on. But if tag-team reversion is going on then it sounds like it's occurring on both sides of the turf war. Given the level of experience and the large numbers of edits these high-profile editors make, a targeted 1RR would certainly seem to put a damper on the problem. -] (]) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::: I don't know where you get the impression that tag-team reversion is "occurring on both sides". I've not seen it, and I do believe a targeted 1RR would benefit only those who want to overrule already established consensus to install personal technical preferences, and that this will be to the detriment of article quality. IIRC, Arbcom has already ruled on the behavioral issues. ] (]) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Tag-team reversion has hardly ever been a factor in this. It certainly hasn't been recently. Editors who revert three times in 24 hours don't need teams. 1RR would curb some of the aggression which is a feature of the argument. That's why I am recommending it as a moderate, minimal approach to the situation. --'']]'' 03:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: ,
	:::::AN/I is for behavioral issues if indeed the noticeboard's participants have the time to properly address them. Unless I'm getting the wrong impression, though, the behavioral issues here sound like they extend back a few years. Add to that the fact that the parties involved are impressively prolific editors and it strikes me that this may require the kind of in-depth examination that ArbCom is better at. But I'm not completely discounting AN/I by any means. I just think there may be a need to go further at a future date. In the meanwhile I strongly feel that the whole nasty situation calls out for intervention and this AN/I thread offers a very convenient starting point. A 2-way interaction ban still seems like a sensible move to me, but mandatory 1RR as Kleinzach suggests would probably be a good alternative to that. I think most people agree that blocking or banning without much deeper examination that we've given it in this thread goes too far, but something like a narrow interaction ban or a 1RR restriction seems like it would fit the bill nicely. Doing nothing at all or (even worse) taking sides on this content dispute seems like a wasted opportunity to take some of the wind out of this issue. -] (]) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Regarding interaction bans we'd need several, not just one, if we opted for that approach. Andy Mabbett Vs. Nikkimaria is only one of the antagonistic relationships involved, and it's certainly ''not'' the major one. If you scan the debates (that I listed above) you'll see this clearly enough. --'']]'' 04:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Presumably the same would be true for the 1RR remedy. Anyway I'm not wedded to the idea that it must be an interaction ban, but it seems like something needs to be done and I think this AN/I thread provides a good place to start. The alternative of doing nothing and hoping it will go away on its own seems naive and/or apathetic - neither one a good administrative quality. -] (]) 10:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Yes, indeed. I'm basically in agreement, even if we come to this from different angles. The worst option would be to do nothing. The new section started below by Andy Mabbett illustrates the on-going problem. '']]'' 22:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: What is so hard about expecting that editors won't show up on articles they have never edited before, expecting to impose their personal technical preferences against already established consensus (particularly when the targeted articles are frequently Featured Articles)? Of course, I understand that it's easier to make everyone culpable rather than look at how content is actually being impacted and sort out the real issues ... again, if more admins followed those previously identified in dispute resolution, the problem would likely disappear. ] (]) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::You're talking about something that is wider than the issue at hand. There are already rules against disruption and tendentious editing. Turning the Classical Music articles into a police state to catch up those less experienced at skirting the rules doesn't seem as useful as providing smaller remedies (interaction ban, 1RR, or whatever) that would coax major participants on both sides of the turf war to the negotiating table. -] (]) 10:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ].
	=== Response after absence ===
			I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content.
	Firstly, thank you to those who have shown patience, or expressed concern, during my enforced absence following a medical emergency. For those curious, I have just posted an update on my talk page. Please be aware that I am not yet fully recovered, so may need to take further breaks from editing.
			] (]) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? ] (]) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the ], e.g. about normalising ], and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in ].
			::I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via ''de facto'' statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often ], which I cannot even comment on. ] (]) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Here is a link to the last time this was raised here.
			:::The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine).
			:::I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that {{User|Unas964}} should adhere to ] while {{user|Cherkash}} needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.] (]) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? ] (]) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith ] (]) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Note that I believe the IP editor above mistakenly posted in this section instead of at .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. ] (]) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Out}}UN Resolutions are not Misplaced Pages guidelines. They're not even binding for the countries involved, let alone Misplaced Pages. UN Resolutions do not recognize Taiwan nor Israeli current borders, yet we recognize their independence and their ''de facto'' territories in out articles. ''De jure'', there's no Taiwan, and Israel is still at war with Iraq since 1947. ''De jure'', the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Do we care? Misplaced Pages focuses on facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world, not bound by temporary laws made by temporary entities which often don't even recognize each other: according to Bhutan, ''de jure'' there's no Croatia; according to Greece, there's no Northern Cyprus; according to Serbia, there's no Kosovo; according to the UN, there's no Taiwan... should we follow them? Of course not. You're free to be pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, as long as you stick to facts. ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. ] (]) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	I came here to ask for assistance in ending the persistent stalking of my edits by Nikkimaria, about which she had already been cautioned, in vain, by numerous others. It is not for Nikki, who seems to believe that her stalking is both justified and permissible, to lay down conditions under which she will cease, as she has done here and elsewhere. As I pointed out, Arbcom have already ruled that such stalking is not permitted. Colleagues will note that I did not ask for any sanction to be taken against her, merely that she be warned of likely sanction if her unacceptable behaviour continues. I do not seek to stifle disagreement on talk pages for projects, nor articles where she has an interest not derived from stalking me.
			::{{re|Simonm223}} Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their ''de facto'' state. ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a ''fact'' that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a ''fact'' that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes.
			:::Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map.
			:::As a corollary it is ''in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals'' to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @] - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @] has seriously failed to ] by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. ] (]) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{re|Simonm223}} I '''don't''' {{tq|have the terms backward there}}. I literally stated that {{tq|''De jure'', there's no Taiwan}}, and also what I meant for {{tq|facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world}}. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires ]. // and no, '''it is not''' {{tq|a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine}}, as ''de jure'' {{tq|the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union}}, as I had already wrote, because ''de jure'' the ] didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had ''de facto''. Do better. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. ] (]) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and ]. In theory, that does not align with ], since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the ] the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. ] (]) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::This is fast reaching ] territory. ] (]) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We also have ]. ] (]) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. ). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the ], ], ] and ] by some ''de facto laws''. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only ], ] and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. ]). That renders ''de facto maps'' a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality.
			:Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of ] and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. ] (]) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|''de facto laws''}}? You're way too confused. {{langnf|la|de jure|by (some country's) law}} is the total opposite of {{langnf|la|de facto|by facts, in reality}}. That's the point. Nice list of stuff tho. Have fun. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, ]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (],] etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some ''consensus'' or ''de facto bodrers'' pretexts, then indeed it has no sense.
			*:If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. ] (]) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' I'm a bit concerned that {{U|Unas964}} has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes , regarding ] "pro-Russian attacks." at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a ] mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to ] was reverted with an edit summary of - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. ] (]) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. ] (]) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Proposal - short duration block for Unas964===
	It is predictable, but not surprising, that some have hijacked this discussion, particularly editors from the classical music project which was {{Diff|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music|558706271|558636701|canvassed by Kleinzach}}. As others have noted, this is typical of attempts by members of that project to silence dissenters; but that matter is for another time. His attempts to insinuate that I have been stalking him, when each of the examples he gives is for a page where I had previously edited, is facile. Further, the vast majority of the many examples I gave in my initial post, above, of Nikki's stalking have nothing to do with classical music. They include an archaeological find, churches, a stately home, artists, sculptors, a photographer, a dancing sports fan, an academic, a judge, a theatre company, a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and a Nazi propagandist. In some cases, I had just started the article. In the ''sole example'' where the subject was related to classical music, I challenged her reversion on the associated talk page, as required by Misplaced Pages policy and the outcome of the RfC initiated by members of the classical music projects. (Colleagues will understand my withdrawal from that discussion; when they judge for themselves the quality of her solution on that article. If they can find the latter.)
			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)
	Nor are the edits subject to Nikkimaria's stalking widely regarded as "problematic" - similar edits are not typically reverted by other editors, nor reverted by when made by other editors.
			:'''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)
			== User talk page access, Wiseguy012 ==
	I am somewhat surprised that after nearly three weeks, no admin has yet told Nikkimaria that her stalking of me must cease. I again invite an uninvolved admin to do so. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=I'm just going to close this. If Wiseguy012 returns and continues to rant or issues personal attacks, please return to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Blocked user ] is using their talk page only for the purpose of continuing the rant that they got blocked for at ] and that they continued there as a sock account, {{noping|Friend0113}}, which is also now blocked. See . Revoke user talk page access? ] (]) 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Hello, ],
			:There is no ] account. Did you mean someone else? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{noping|Wiseguy012}}, lower g. ] (]) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks CMD. They are just ranting to themselves, not attacking anyone. An admin might come by, review this complaint and remove TPA but I don't find it egregious enough to act. Typically blocked editors can act like this right after they discover they've been blocked but then they move on and leave Misplaced Pages or they start creating sockpuppets and that's a bigger problem than a talk page rant. Too soon to tell right now. But it doesn't seem ANI-worthy to me. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The things some people decide to get mad about.... What they posted on the talk page was a copyright violation in its entirety, so that's gone, and I've warned them for that and let them know further disruption of any kind will cause them to lose talk page access. ] ] 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. ] (]) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Still misuse of talk page for spamming. ] 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That content was posted hours ago and was similar to what was reported here in the complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Caste-based disruption ==
	:Of course attack is thought by some to be the best means of defense, and I note that his ongoing indisposition (from which of course I am glad that he has largely recovered) does not prevent Mr. Mabbett going out of his way, in his response, to accuse ] of 'canvassing'. ] is perfectly clear: 'canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate is considered inappropriate', whilst under 'appropriate notification' we read 'An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Misplaced Pages collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion '. A notification on a Project Talk Page, which does not encourage response one way or the other, is therefore not canvassing, (unless we accept the opinion of some editors that the rabid inhabitants of the Classical Music Project are ripe for any opportunity of mayhem). Chucking such imputations around does not serve Mr. Mabbett's case. Indeed it would seem to support those above who impute the onus of this controversy to him.--] (]) 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{u|HistorianAlferedo}} has engaged in contentious ] style editing in the ] related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in ] POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as ] (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:
	:: It is not at all clear who you think you're kidding. ] (]) 19:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			*, , , : 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)
	:::My apologies for confusing you.--] (]) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			:], you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*The above claims show that Andy will continue as he has done over the last several years—belligerent pushing of infoboxes, with the interim stepping stone of disqualifying an opponent as a "stalker". Infoboxes are not mandatory, but collaboration is. It is disruptive to push any agenda, whether it be politics, the length of dashes, or infoboxes. It causes distress to good editors who like things differently from the ]. The proper way to resolve this battle, which has raged for years, is to hold an RfC to establish whether infoboxes are mandatory, and if not, whether persistently pushing non-mandatory infoboxes is disruptive and should be subject to sanctions. ] (]) 23:00, 24 June 2013 (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 ] ==
	:: OK, first - I thought about commenting about the Thumperward Smerus exchange - but meh ... you two want to take snide shots at each other .. whatever. Now .. Johnuniq. As much as I admire a lot of what you do on wiki, I must take exception to your above comment. I call bullshit. Why? "''Andy will continue as he has done over the last several years—belligerent pushing of infoboxes,''" Well lets talk about all those who "belligerently push '''no''' infoboxes, k? WP:OWN doesn't simply apply to individual editors .. but to all aspects of Misplaced Pages. It's a concept. As much value as there is in "projects" - they can not, and should not "OWN" anything either. Hence WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. RfC on infoboxes? Hell, there's been so damned many of 'em why not? What's one more added to the mix? (which is one reason I abandoned my RfC draft - I learned just how divisive the topic was.) Quite frankly? YEP!! This topic is well beyond ripe for an Arbcom case. Tell ya what though - if someone does it? Gonna be a TON of folks get smacked .. and smacked hard. IDGAF. The thread started with Andy's being "stalked" issue. Nikki promised to stop stalking Andy. Nikki had a problem with avoiding Gerda's edits because they both edit in the same topic area. Gerda wants to continue talking and working with Nikki in a peaceful fashion. So what the hell is there left to do in this thread exactly? — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 05:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::]: I posted a list of music-related box infobox discussions above (in the pale yellow box). Can you at least ''scan'' some of the discussions? I posted it particularly for people like you, so the content of this debate could be more accessible. --'']]'' 09:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I am not aware of anyone going to an article that has an infobox, then removing it because "articles should not have infoboxes". The addition of infoboxes has been reverted, but that is resisting the push of infoboxes—it is not pushing '''no''' infoboxes. Infoboxes are not currently mandatory, so condoning the civil pushing of them is condoning unnecessary disruption. If it were one or two articles, the "stop violating WP:OWN" argument might be persuasive, but it's lots of articles which are being picked off one by one by a small number of editors. ] (]) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
			I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI.
	== User:AfricaTanz ==
			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.
	Hi everyone. I want to report ] because his behavior seems very problematic to me. Beside telling other users they are "not welcome" to post on his talk page and accusing them of "long-term harassment", he unilaterally move pages about ] (contrary to the ], and especially to the third bullet point of ]), and now it seems he plan to start an edit war on ] and ]. I have no desire to get blocked in some stupid edit war with him (especially when I saw that he was blocked for 48h only 15 days ago because of edit-warring), so I decided to report behavior of AfricaTanz here. Cheers! --] (]) 22:25, 21 June 2013 (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.
	:I have AfricaTanz. I have to agree with Sundostund's assessment: AfricaTanz has strong opinions on article names (that's not a crime, of course), and he pushes them even when the community has overwhelmingly disagreed with him before. See for example ], ] (move discussion launched within minutes of ]'s and ]'s comments at the WikiProject talk page) and ] (the page was moved to its current title hours after the Rombo move request had failed to find any support). With the lone exception of the Rombo, AfricaTanz seems to avoid discussion at article talk pages, and he with my suggestion to use ] to establish consensus before moving pages. Instead he prefers to tell others to stay off ''his'' talk page or to tell them to stop their edits on the relevant articles: Others' un-discussed edits get labeled as disruptive, he himself edits largely without attempting discussion (I should point out , though the article talk page would probably have been a better place).
	:Even when I agree with his points I find AfricaTanz' lack of communication irritating, and his attempts to enforce his personal opinions on page titles against community consensus will not end well. ] (]) 00:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::My experience is he doesnt like talk pages, posted a discussion on my page that should have gone on a talk page and then chose not to engage in another discussion I opened on the talk page concerning his editing. Having said the which if directly challenged he hasnt, in my experience on LGBT in Jamaica, engaged in edit warring but instead has taken my comments to heart. Thanks, ♫ ] ] ] 00:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I'm glad to see that other users noted AfricaTanz' problematic behavior as well. --] (]) 10:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I think it may be a good thing to quote what a user said about the behavior of AfricaTanz in another ANI thread, 10 days ago. Here it comes:
			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.
	AfricaTanz seems to be unable to engage in any constructive and respectful way with other users. I've been the subject of one of his frivolous 'edit warring' reports, along with another user on the same day, as he creates edit warring reports very liberally (, ). In neither case were provisions taken against the users he reported, and in one case he ended up being himself warned. He later described the result as , which seems to suggest that ending the imaginary edit war was not the objective for him.
			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.
	Other users were treated in a similar manner: he refuses to engage in (seemingly benign) , (which adds to the impression that he uses it as a weapon, rather than to solve disputes), on other people's talk pages, and makes accusations of as well as unsubstantiated .
			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.
	A ] has been opened on the matter that lead to his original accusations of edit warring towards me, but I feel that his conduct is by far the bigger issue.--] (]) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
			SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly ] and a suspected COI paid editing on article like ]. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see
	:::] (]) 13:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I didn't come across AfricaTanz after that dispute, but I heard about another user (other than Sundostund) who had problems with him due to his lack of communication and poor manners. I think it's time to let him know that he needs to change his behaviour.--] (]) 01:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here {{redacted}}. I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.
	:::::*It should be noted what happened at the previous ANI report quoted above: nothing , because the individual in question chose not to respond and the report got archived without any action. <span style="border:2px solid darkgreen;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:lightblue" > ] ]</span> 02:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::**You are definitely right, Underlying lk. Taroaldo, that's ''exactly'' what should be avoided here - doing nothing because the individual in question chose not to respond. --] (]) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	I can endorse (and if necessary, considerably elaborate on) the evidence presented by other users above, but can I ask what specific administrator action they expect to be taken over it? —] (]) 11:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:In my opinion, some kind of block should be considered. AfricaTanz was blocked for 48h, only 15 days ago, for edit-warring and it didn't changed his behavior at all. I think some block longer than 48h is a right thing to do in this case. --] (]) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I disagree with Sundostund; I'd say AfricaTanz' behaviour has changed significantly for the better over the past few days, with him joining a discussion at ] and launching one at ]. Blocking him now would serve no purpose. ] (]) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::In the same time period, however, he has publically "banned" a number of users from his talk page, accusing them of harassment, dishonesty, incivility, etc., when all they had done was to inform him about apparent violations of policy or to open discussion on disputed matters of content ; there are more examples if you go further back. (It's rather onerous to provide a complete list as he tends to remove from his talk page all criticism and warnings, no matter how friendly and constructively worded.) In the past few days he's also thrice characterized others' edits as "hysteria" . So yes, I agree that much of his recent behaviour has been good, but he's still engaging in the sort of disruptive behaviour which others have complained about upthread. —] (]) 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			When I had to quit Misplaced Pages for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Misplaced Pages as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November this made me realise that SerChevalerie might have ] relating to my presence on Misplaced Pages itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article ]. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See . Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it.
	== Request for someone to please explain the importance of politeness and not biting newbies ==
			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)
	I'm reluctantly bringing this to ANI, as I can see no progress in further interaction with this user. I first noticed ]
	when he reverted an obviously good faith edit with the summary "reverting vandalism". Looking at his history, I saw that he calls things vandalism when they are obviously good faith edits, e.g. , , . I thought I should better speak with him about this, and decided to have a look through his history. I was a bit shocked to see that he routinely leaves insulting edit summaries. (e.g. , , , , ,, all from the last week, and I'm sure I missed some.) I'm not objecting to his reverts, I'm objecting to the way he reverts, as it drives off editors and worsens the problem of our deteriorating editor base.
			: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.
	I dropped him a message to express my concerns. His reply essentially denies anything wrong, and implies that I am being ridiculous and am insulting him. I admonished him to take my concerns to heart, and he removed it with the edit summary ''"I am astonished by your impertinence. Who are you to admonish anyone? Quit this bizarre stalking immediately and go away from my talk page."''
			:{{Blockquote|"During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had {{Diff|Tsumyoki|1240530309}} as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]."}}
			:In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.
			:If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided ]. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.
			:I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to ], but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. ] (]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. ] 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits ==
	I think it would be helpful if an admin explains to him that good faith edits shouldn't be called vandalism, that two neutrally worded messages on his talk page is not stalking, and that he shouldn't leave insulting edit summaries. ] (]) 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Indeffed by Canterbury Tail ] ] 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*While the user does have a somewhat overly-broad definition of vandalism, there really isn't anything actionable here and the so-called "insulting" edit summaries are incredibly weak: "nonsense" or "unhelpful" would be unkind if directed at a person, but directed at a sentence or template it's not an insult. On the other hand, FurrySings, your talk message with its child-scolding tone seemed to be intended to provoke a negative response ("'' If you care about the long term outcome of this project...''"). Do you seriously think most editors would react well to that? If you agree with the reverts themselves and they weren't even your edits reverted, you come off here as unnecessarily picking a fight over nothing. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 04:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			<br>I just wanted to add that TTYDDoopliss was found to be the sockpuppet of an editor many of us became familiar with last spring on ANI and the Teahouse. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	**I must say how bizarre all of this is - so bizarre that a completely uninvolved user (with whom I only had a short discussion last year) could not help caling FurrySings' message an . FurrySings and I had not interacted in any way whatsoever before he or she started scolding me for allegedly rude edit summaries (such as: "Unhelpful. The portrait does not depict her."). The same user, while lecturing me about such supposedly inappropriate edit summaries, described me as the very first time he or she contacted me. Such impudence is nothing but bizarre. I that I comment on edits ] and suggested that he or she should do the same, but to no avail. ] (]) 15:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			* {{userlinks|TTYDDoopliss}}
	I'll have to begin my comments by referring any neutral editor . I think ] and I are looking for neutral comment here, not for more decimeters of ridicule and sarcasm from Surtsicna. Additionally, any reader of English is likely to be astounded, flabbergasted in fact, at the ''amount'' of sarcasm and ridicule hurled at someone who only wants h to stop calling good faith edits "vandalism". Unless I'm mistaken, a lot of good work done on WP (which Surtsicna certainly does, as I have recognized repeatedly) cannot entitle anyone to endulge in that kind of mud-slinging as a regular behaviorism. When ] commented, he surely must have been unaware of the exceedingly belligerent tone coming, to an overwhelming degree, from one side of these arguments. Sorry, but this is par for the course for Surtsicna, who, when objected to or crossed or (particularly) reverted, is one of the least civil editors I know of on English WP. If falsely accusing others of "bizarre stalking" and "gross personal insults" (and much much more such stuff including always threats of a backlash) is getting to be OK, then all of us who need a somewhat acceptable working environment here need to quit this. '''There is no good reason ''ever'' to be sarcastic, condescending and full of ridicule about another editor or about h work.''' --] (]) 00:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Some context: SergeWoodzing took the opportunity to attack because her or his ]. She or he had been reinserting unsourced and extremely dubious info into a BLP-related article, claiming that his or her ] trumped ] - something I strongly disagreed with. SergeWoodzing, who's monitoring my talk page, readily joined FurrySings' bizarre stalker attack. The fact that SergeWoodzing pretends that calling me is not a is very telling. The fact that FurrySings' out-of-the-blue message is has been all but confirmed by ]; Andrew's comment, however, is probably irrelevant because he has .
			Summary: Is there a non-male administrator willing to provide some guidance to this editor, particularly in edits related to gender?
	:SergeWoodzing is perfectly aware that the edit summaries were evidently not directed at any user but instead at a sentence or a template (something also noted by Andrew), but ignoring that enables her or him to accuse me of being "sarcastic, condescending and full of ridicule about another editor or about h work" (in bold letters, of course). More than half of his or her since 12 June are attempts to see me blocked for disagreeing that her or his common sense trumps verifiability. Who is falsely accusing whom of what is obviously transparent to neutral and uninvolved users (as some have already commented), and there is no need for me to say so explicitly. FurrySings (who is not above ) has presented all her or his evidence, and that "evidence" has been reviewed. I beg an administrator to end this witchhunt and to prevent these users from harassing me in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::If I'm not contributing very much in other ways at this time, it may be because behavior such as that of Surtsicna makes me tire and lose interest, and also it may be that I am awaiting some neutral, reasonable outcome of this discussion, aimed at improving our working environment i general and the behavior of this particular editor (with whom I often must interact due to similar interests) in particular. ] (]) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Oh, please. Might it be because you are ? (That has not prevented you, however, from going after me whenever you do have time for Misplaced Pages - at help desk, at AN, at ANI, at administrator talk pages, etc, for over a week after our dispute ended.) Anyway, the edit summaries show just how "impolite" my behaviour has been. Once again I ask an administrator to end this already. ] (]) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::"Oh, please" (and every such sarcastic comment) speaks for itself. Always does, always will. ] (]) 11:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::If you look for sarcasm, you will find it even in the word "please". In this instance, it stood for: "Oh, please ." Your attempt to pass it off as something worthy of reprehension sums up this entire petty thread. In all of your comments so far, you've avoided responding to the core of my comment. The intent of such tactics is easy to perceive. ] (]) 12:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*There is a valid and important point here. Misuse of the word "vandalism", understandable though it may be if one spends a lot of time removing foolishness, is a damaging assumption of bad faith and easily puts off editors who would otherwise have improved into useful members of the community. ] sets out in detail what not to call vandalism. Biting newbies is indeed a particular concern. Also, while people have varying degrees of sensitivity to sarcasm, it's important to note that tone is hard to read in online communications, and mockery and dismissal of others' concerns can have a chilling effect. Also, Surtsicna, when removing "nonsense", please be a little more careful to look at the result: checking the diffs provided by FurrySings, I saw that left the princess married to another princess. Which I could I suppose have described in my correction edit summary as also nonsense, but ... that would be unnecessarily rude. If you will take that point on board, Surtsicna, and particularly avoid the "v" word, then I think we can be done here. ] (]) 17:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Finally a fresh pair of eyes! Thank you very much for commenting. I do, however, feel that you are missing a big point here that ] noted: my edit summaries were not directed at anyone in particular. I did not refer to anyone's edit as nonsense. I did not mock or dismiss a single user. Had you described my failed correction of nonsense as nonsense, that ''might'' have been rude, because it would have been directed at ''me''. Also, which newbie did I bite? This is all thin air. A user I had no contact with appears on my talk page, straightforwardly insults me and demands that I quit describing various sorts of detrimental edits not only as vandalism, but also as unhelpful - because even the latter word is apparently impolite. SergeWoodzing readily joins in, after her or his several recent attempts to see me blocked for disagreeing with him all failed. Look at just how excited that user is because of your comment. Was I as excited as that when Andrew Lenahan "took my side" (so to speak)? Of course not - I never even expected otherwise, given how absurd this all is. In the course of this discussion, people accusing me of impoliteness have described me as a "very unreasonable and stubborn", "abrupt, surly or even rude" person with "a stick up his ass" - yet I am the one being reprehended here for describing article content as "ridiculous" or what not. That is astounding. ] (]) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	OK Yngvadottir, thank you! But just above your helpful comments, you'll find Surtsicna's instruction to me to "quit the histrionics". I commented here at all because one of the two points, as per heading, that FurrySings specifically has asked be addressed is "'''Request for someone to please explain the importance of politeness'''" - has that been accomplished when we ignore this type of repeated and habitual slurs, of which there are huge heaps of evidence? Surtsinca obviously feels h/s has unlimited license for such and is flawless, though nobody is flawless. Will somebody neutral please also address the issue of "politeness"? --] (]) 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			The user in question is relatively new. (Yes, an early edit stated she had a previous account, but she used it for roughly one day in December 2024 before {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse|prev|1265829279|losing her password}}, and she had no warnings at all on the account, so abuse of multiple accounts does not apply here.
	I don't know how much helpful can that be, but two of his edits presented in the first post as evidence were wrong and I reverted them.--] (]) 01:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:One is debatable (whether a succession box is trivial or not, given that it's supported by no sources), while the other was certainly not wrong, as evidenced by sources (whether a portrait depicts the subject of the article). ] (]) 09:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
			With her new account, she quickly {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse|prev|1265829279|received a message alerting her that gender is a contentious topic|diffonly=yes}}, so she is CTOPS/aware of gender issues. After which, she has made edits including:
	== Tendentious editing at ] ==
			* This sequence of edits to ]:
	{{archivetop|status=No action|result=Three days of discussion have shown no need for admin action at this time. If editor(s) feel a post at wp:ae is appropriate they are free to initiate one (reviewing the guidelines there is highly recommended). <small>]</small> 01:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)}}
			** {{Diff|List of media notable for being in development hell|prev|1270570240|Edit summary: ''men don’t be utterly deprived and ruin women’s lives by being a sex pest challenge (don’t revert if you’re a man, you’re disgusting and I want nothing to do with you guys)''|diffonly=yes}}
	'''Note:''' ] at ] and at ]. Please try to centralize the discussion here rather than on multiple forums. --] (]) 18:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			** {{Diff|List of media notable for being in development hell|prev|1270571663|Edit summary: ''Undid revision 1270571008 by C.Fred (talk) how many more women are going to be hurt by continuing to let men like this in the game industry''|diffonly=yes}}
	:As I commented at Jimbo Wales' Talk page, claims there and here that "forumshopping" has gone on seem overblown. And there, Guy Macon apologized and struck the "forumshopping" claim. Anyone is welcomed by Jimbo Wales to post at his Talk page, and it did not seem to me like forumshopping for there to be a posting there, directed to Jimbo. I agree that parties here do not need to repeat their arguments there, however. --]]] 23:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			* {{Diff|Dawn M. Bennett|prev|1270573048|To Dawn M. Bennett|diffonly=yes}}, removing an image with the edit summary ''she has cleavage, which means men will want to screw her if they see the image''
	----
			* {{Diff|User talk:TTYDDoopliss|prev|1270578539|To her own user talk|diffonly=yes}}, removing a thread that included warnings with the edit summary ''please leave me alone, im trying to lessen my suffering as a woman in a male-dominated world''
			I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I concede her point that, generally speaking, men in the world have done and continue to do pretty crappy things to women. However, Misplaced Pages is not the place to ], and IMO, some of her edits are even going counter to the viewpoint she holds. I also know that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social platform, and I worry that her behaviour, unchecked, will result in her crossing a line that gets her blocked, where an admin, regardless of gender, has to stop the disruption.
	There appears to be a problem with tendentious editing at ].
			I'd like somebody to reach out to her to give her some advice before it gets to that point, and—while I generally think that any editor can do any job on Misplaced Pages regardless of gender—I think this a situation where a non-male or cisfemale administrator should be the one to make the contact. —''']''' (]) 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	In particular, ] disagrees with the consensus among scholars that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible. Which is fine -- he is certainly welcome to argue that -- but when asked for sources, he claims that none are needed because<br />
			:I was going to suggest that if there's any founded concerns a trans woman would get bitten in this hypothetical interaction then we should probably just ] right now. However then I went and looked at the diffs in question and the discussion that was on the user's talk page and I have to ask: has anyone considered this might all be a troll? ] (]) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:"''Several Christian Churches and other religions teach that this is historical. These account for hundreds of millions of adherents. You will never see them as significant because you have an anti-religious bias''" ... "''NPOV is a worthless sham if it only allows one POV to be presented and if it does not allow all POVs to be given impartially.''"<br />
			::perhaps my useful non-gender related edits might tip you off to the fact that im not a troll? here’s something non-gender related articles i fixed up: ], ], ] ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	There are some related behavioral issues such as edit warring and personal attacks, but the main problem is a rejection of ] and ] because they conflict with religious dogma.<br />
			:I think this is a straightforward ] or ] block. Misplaced Pages quite a number of women editors and they seem to be fine and don't seem to experience overt persecution. I just don't see how this user can reasonably be expected to collaborate with others, a core requirement of Misplaced Pages editing, if they're just going to accuse everyone else of being misogynists. ] (]) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Note: I ran across this one while investigating personal attacks by Til Eulenspiegel elsewhere. Other than that I have no real involvement with the page or interest in the topic. --] (]) 04:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			::Yeah. It's the edits themselves not really matching up to the complaints in the edit summary that jumps out at me. Like two of the diffs are them ''removing'' mention to a man who was accused of sexual assault complaining that men must not revert the deletion because of misogyny. Another was removing a picture of an, honestly, modestly dressed woman in game development with a claim that it would make men horny. The discrepancy between what is being deleted and the justifications being given is rather striking. However whether this is a sincerely unwell person or a troll feigning distress, either way, I don't think this editor is here to write an encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah, ] in action. I think it's best to assume good faith that that this is a real person in serious mental distress rather than a troll though, though they should be blocked either way. ] (]) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::just because i don’t want women to be treated like sh*t doesn’t mean i deserve to be thrown in a psych ward, or that im in any sort of “distress”. does it look like im in distress right now? no, and I haven’t been. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] Hrm. So is the inference that you ''willingly and knowingly'' made those uncivil edits, so you should be at the least topic banned from gender issues, broadly construed, if not blocked indefinitely? —''']''' (]) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::again, I would take the topic ban over an indef any day. I have worth to bring here, and good intentions. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Honestly I don't think you're in any sort of distress at all. As I think, rather, that you are trolling Misplaced Pages and ] to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{tq|benefit of the doubt}}{{snd}}Pardon me, but what doubt could there possibly be? ]] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Surprised they weren't blocked after the vast majority of en.wiki contributors "nerdy men". ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::that’s… not an insult? just an observation ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I mean the shoe fits here. Any time I mention that I have editing[REDACTED] as a hobby I get called a nerd. LOL ] (]) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, but we aren’t all “nerdy men”, albeit maybe a bit nerdy. Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point is I haven’t seem them collaborate constructively yet. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::“Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I go to the talk pages of articles, no one ever responds. I just operate over ], it’s easier and takes less time. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:i mean you requested “guidance”, everyone else is suggesting indef which is ''not'' what i had in mind when you left this here. id gladly take a gensex topic ban over never being able to edit ever again. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm suspecting trolling, here. ] (]) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I’ve made a lot of non-gender edits. I’m not here solely to make those kind of edits. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes, you may be a net positive to the site, but you should be wary that any of your actions can get you blocked regardless. There have been plenty of cases where a user has done so much for Misplaced Pages, but their actions got them indef'ed, usually for ] violations. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::See my concern, and why I and others are doubting Doopliss' sincerity, is edits like this - the edit summary may claim they're trying to protect women or correct misogyny but the end result is to remove information ''about the exploitation caused by the games industry'' - which, of course, has quite a lot of misogyny within it. These sorts of counter-productive edits make Doopliss' actions questionable. A combination of strident edit summaries regarding the dangers of misogyny with edits that make misogyny less visible in articles, that make ''women working in the games industry literally less visible,'' seem less like somebody feeling upset over misogyny and more like someone using tropes about feminism to disrupt Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::so you think I’m just making fun of feminists or something? do you think im pretending to be a woman and I’m actually an incel or some crap? what if I told you I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body? But of course you won’t believe me. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{tq|I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body}} Be that as it may, leave that attitude at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay.]] 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Okay, so leave that fear at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Thanks.]] 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::clearly you’ve never had a ], or ]. It’s not something you just… leave. But I won’t get into detail. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::We're sorry for what you have to deal with, but that doesn't excuse disruption. It's unfortunate, but you need to find a way to adapt, or a block may come your way. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::what can I do to make sure I don’t get indeffed? anything? because I want to edit here again in my lifetime ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::You've already been told by {{U|Liz}}, so it's up to you now. Either acknowledge and take on the board the advice you have been given, or yes, you will likely be blocked.]] 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Acknowledge that your past actions were wrong and disruptive, you promise to never do them again, and from here on contribute constructively. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*], I'll cut to the chase rather than participating in a debate over what your motivation is for some of your editing. I'm a female administrator and you've been brought to ANI. While this is sometimes done for frivolous reasons, for the most part, unless vandalism is occurring, complaints are brought here to resolve in order that harsher sanctions won't be necessary. It's an attempt to address problems before a block becomes necessary. There is a view that your glib messages asserting a POV regarding sexism or editors on this project are inappropriate and borderline unacceptable. Can you cease with the personal commentary here? Because if you can not, there will not be a third chance, my Misplaced Pages experience tells me that a block from editing of some duration will be coming your way. So, the choice is up to you at this point. Act professionally and not like Misplaced Pages is some kind of discussion forum, or have your editing privileges removed.
			:And to reinforce this in case it needs to be emphasized, this is not about sexism or gender really, it's about NPOV and disruptive editing. You'd be getting a similar message if you were making side comments about politics, ethnicity, race or any other subjects that cross over into contentious subject areas. These are designated areas where sloppy editing and off-the-cuff comments are sanctioned if the editor can't control her/himself. From a nerdy female editor, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::is there any other way I can make Misplaced Pages a better place for women? How about a policy like ] but for women? ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm looking at edit. A perfectly normal picture of a woman was removed with a weird and offensively sexualised edit summary. I can't begin to stress how perfectly normal that picture is. There are two possibilities here. One is that this is anti-feminist trolling under a false flag but the other is that TTYDDoopliss is exactly what she claims to be and was genuinely triggered by a perfectly ordinary picture of a woman at an awards ceremony. If the later then she is clearly in no state to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at this time. Pictures like that turn up all over Misplaced Pages. If we have stronger evidence of deliberate trolling elsewhere then obviously that's an indef (of both the old and new accounts) but if that edit was made in good faith then I think a temporary block would be best for all concerned. It would give TTYDDoopliss an opportunity to come back later if she is well enough, and if she wants to, of course. --] (]) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There's which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. ] (]) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::because there’s no such thing as “women/men are affected more often” it’s 100% gender bias.male researchers assign depression, anxiety, ocd, and BPD to women because they are seen as neurotic and hysterical. they assign adhd, autism and npd to men because it fits them being nerdy, socially awkward and perverted. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::What we would expect is to find ] compliant sources to demonstrate that rather than a person engaging in ] in a way that leads to a statement contradicted by its own reliable citation. ] (]) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::And, exacerbating this, you were already engaged here with people raising concerns about your widespread disruptive editing, which had been explained to you, before you made this edit. Which makes it quite deliberated disruption. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::OK. Now I'm looking at edit and that does seem a lot more like trolling. The edit summary sounds like an anti-feminist parody of a feminist and the actual edit is to remove coverage of an alleged sex offender. Given that sexual misconduct is a serious issue in the video games industry it seems implausible that even the most misguided feminist would try to cover it up. I know that mental illness can express itself in many ways but... I just don't buy it. ] (]) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I removed it because it made me upset. I KNOW it is a huge problem. I don’t even feel safe being in the public eye of any man. I don’t feel safe having ANY job knowing that im just gonna get assaulted by a man and HR won’t do anything and I will be traumatized for the rest of my life. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|I removed it because it made me upset.}} What? Have you read ] and ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes. Having intense coverage of SA accusations will only fuel men more to hurt us and use us. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Weren't you the one who wanted to NOT get indeffed 10 minutes ago? Whether you have legitimate feelings about this or you are just ], a block is coming soon if you continue with this behavior. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::fine ill shut up now ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: also looks like parody. ] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It also led to a bit of revert action with the claim that noting the character's motivation included desire for a girlfriend was "dehumanizing". Hilariously this is about a comic in which the ''male'' protagonist is resurrected as a non-gendered non-human. ] (]) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Women don’t exist to fulfill men’s needs. I’m sorry. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::No one said or implied any such thing. ] (]) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Women don't exist to fulfill men's needs. That is very true. However desire for a partner can certainly be part of a character's motivation. ] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: actually takes a ] cited statement and rewrites it to say something that the RS did not say not once but twice. In addition, there is the claim that erasing sexual orientation as a possible subject of obsessive and compulsive ideation is somehow reducing heteronormative bias. Which is somewhat contrary to what I would expect from a sincere feminist editor. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::: is somewhat better than average. At least the source says, "Insofar as they affect women, bromances, when taken in conjunction with monogamous heterosexual relationships, decrease the burden on women to provide all the care work for their partners."
			:::::::However "all the care work" is paraphrased by Doopliss to "The increasing tolerance of bromances relives pressure on women to be emotionally intimate with men," which is... not... the same thing. But at least I can look at the source, look at the statement and draw a line between them, however tenuous. ] (]) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Also, this too supports my "troll" hypothesis since the very next paragraph of the Chen source begins "Bromances reinforce gender hierarchy, bolster marriage as the goveming, archetypal intimate relationship, and normalize homophobia." So we have an article crtical of bromance being used to praise it for getting men out of womens' hair. ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think it's clear some form of block is necessary now. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::why? how? why not a topic ban or something? PLEASE don’t kick me out. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Because you have disrupted multiple topics. ] (]) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And that's it. That's the proof that we are being played. An inexperienced user would not be advocating for a topic ban. An inexperienced user would not even know what a topic ban was. This is probably a Gamergate dead-ender yanking our chains. ] (]) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'd suggest a checkuser but what's the point? They are going to get blocked anyway. ] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I know what a topic ban is because I’ve lurked on pages like AN/I before. I’ve been browsing back-end Misplaced Pages pages for years. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::And I don’t even know what a “dead-ender” is. You guys think im an incel in disguise when i hate incels with a burning passion. But of course, you guys don’t believe me. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yes, you are right. We don't believe you AT ALL. Why, you ask? This whole ANI thread. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::what can I do to make you guys believe me? ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That ship has sailed. ] (]) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			I've gone ahead and blocked them. It's clear we're being trolled. They're not only offensively characterising men, they're offensively characterising women and people with mental illnesses. Thay also can't keep their own lies and beliefs straight. We're done here. ] ] 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: Indefinite block ===
			For disruptive editing and ]. I propose that TTYDDoopliss be indefintely blocked. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Per nom. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Even if they are what they claim to be there is nothing for them here. --] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. In addition, ] and ]. - ] ] 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' For the reasons and multitudinous diffs cited above I believe this whole dog and pony show is a troll. ] to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per above. I don't mean to be rude, but Wikipedians are a diverse bunch, and some of us are bound to be male. If you can't work collaboratively, you can't work at all. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' because as I said before, whether this user has legitimate intentions behind these edits or is just ], their disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge their actions shows me that they are ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' per nom ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Per Nom. The way she characterizes certain mental illnesses is untrue and frankly beyond offensive. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - I believe we're being trolled. ] (]) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nomination - I had initial sympathy but it's just trolling. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nom. Good block by CT.]] 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support:''' TTYDDoopliss asked, several times over, what she could do to avoid a general block. Over and over again, she refused to respond in the one way that would have helped her: by saying that she'd clean up her act and stop dumping her own issues onto this site. Even if we weren't being trolled, any time an ] person gets cbanned, an angel gets its wings. ] 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ]: ] and ] behaviour. ==
	:'''Followup Note:''' ] has another legitimate account (]. No evidence of sockpuppetry, but any admin who is counting previous blocks should add blocks from both accounts Also note that some of the blocks were cancelled; the total number of actual behavioral blocks appears to be nine. --] (]) 17:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Why are you the main person here repeatedly calling for my blood? What rule have I actually broken that you want me punished for, other than disagreeing with you about the neutrality of ]? ] /]/ 21:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			Toa Nidhiki05 has been guarding the hell out of the ]. They instantly revert any change against the status quo that they don't like, citing a need for consensus, then don't actually engage with discussions around those edits except to call for moratoriums on even talking about them while spewing bad faith assumptions, or trying to wikilawyer away disagreements. I'm not a long term editor at ] and, frankly, don't want to be, but in the limited number of days I've been editing on this it's clearly an issue.
	:I absolutely dispute that there is any such "consensus" and make no apology for doing so. Those who say "there was never any kind of Exodus, nothing to see, please move on" do not enjoy the monopoly on all permissible discourse that they pretend to enjoy. Nothing has been proven, we need to give all significant perspectives, therefore this is a POV dispute, and adding POV tags are appropriate, not something to be reported as "tendentious editing' to try to get me "in trouble" and removed from the discussion. ] /]/ 04:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:The tag I added was {toofewopinions} the one that says "More viewpoints needed". I have not even gotten around to looking for suitable sources yet, this is a tag stating that too few opinions are given and more need to be looked for. They are demanding that I supply sources in two seconds or there is no neutrality dispute because I supposedly lack standing to dispute the one-sidedness of this pov-pushing, heavily biased article. ] /]/ 04:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Re "''They are demanding that I supply sources in two seconds''", you were first asked for sources on 26 March. It is now 22 June. --] (]) 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::In that summary from March, I see TGeorgescu flatly declaring that any sources for "Christian or conservative viewpoints" will be pre-disqualified. To state that I was "asked" for sources there seems like a falsehood on your part. But I was referring to today's "too few opinions" tag requesting further sources, not something else that was declared by fiat three months ago. ] /]/ 05:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::That's blatantly false, because I put no time limit on when you should provide sources at all, never mind "in two seconds", nor insinuate so in any way. ] (]) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	Unfortunately, this is a stunt that Til Eulenspiegel has pulled time and time again. His M.O. is to show up on a talk page pushing some fringe or extreme minority POV, accuses other editors of censorship, bias and bad faith, and, when asked to provide reliable sources, fails to do so or provides useless fringe sources that do not meet the requirements of out policies, arguing something that boils down to ], all policies be damned. He wastes a lot of other editors' time, and the result is indistinguishable from common trolling. It is very disruptive and tendentious. Particularly irritating is his penchant for turning content and policy disagreements into personal disagreements, focusing on editors rather than on content or policy. I have warned him about ] in the past, and this time as well. ] (]) 05:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Except that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. are not "some fringe or extreme minority POV" except from your perspective, which is rather curious... that's basically the problem we're having. ] /]/ 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Note that in fact I am not pushing any POV and never have. I have consistently been calling for "More POVS" to be included. Those who dominate the talkpage are setting it up so that exclusively their opinion gets included, others get barely a mention, and anyone daring to dissent gets branded a heretic and hauled into the heresy tribunal, everybody pick up a firebrand, blah blah blah yawn. ] /]/ 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::They are fringe or extreme minority as far as scholarly topics like history and archeology are concerned. And your take on them is often fringe or extreme minority even within the religious community. Here's a classic example, complete with you making claims that were demonstrably not held by the religious group in question, attacking other editors, and failing to provide sources: ]. ] (]) 05:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I dispute your assertion you keep repeating that the religious teachings of churches, synagogues and mosques are a "fringe or extreme minority". I do understand that your goal is to portray these religions' views of the Bible as insignificant, as fringe, as minority, as unworthy of mention, worthy only of marginalization. But you are coopting wikipedia, a neutral project used by everyone across the spectrum, when you expect it to become a vehicle for your polemic agenda. ] /]/ 05:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::(ec)I see four recent edits by Til Eulenspiegel to the article, all about adding a tag because he thinks the religious POV should be prominently included, which seems reasonable enough to me. It might be that a POV fork is actually ''appropriate'' for this article, with religious scholarship handled separately from academic inquiry, much like how evolution and creationism are handled. But I have to say, to my layman's eye the academic line doesn't seem very convincing; it reminds me of how everybody said Troy was a myth. <small>(Isn't it possible that "slaves" was a rhetorical exaggeration (or not) used when workers in labor unrest were told they couldn't quit their jobs and do something different? And that the miracle of the parting and flooding at the Red Sea, like Moses drawing water from the rock, involved some (humble and insignificant) involvement of engineers who played with the locks on the ancient Suez Canal that flowed from the Nile?)</small> I don't know this editor, haven't looked at his other edits, I've made no attempt to see if he's had another account, and if you want to make this out as part of a broader pattern of abuse go ahead -- but I'd hate to see somebody get penalized for just a few edits suggesting what seems like a reasonable intent to fairly balance the encyclopedia. ] (]) 05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I will say this: I agree with you that there is not yet a need for any penalization. But don't limit yourself to looking at the article. When you read the talk page, it becomes very obvious that Til simply doesn't get it. and others in that thread show that Til has both a profound misunderstanding of the neutral point of view as well as a severe battleground mentality. As is shown in that diff and others, Til considers the opinion that his point of view is insignificant to be an attack on his religious beliefs. So Til, if you're reading this, which I assume you will, you should probably just avoid this article in the future. Think about how personally you've been taking this content dispute, and you should realize how biased you really are on this topic, regardless of whether you have a point. But I don't think a few edits on the article and an argument going nowhere on the talk page required an ANI thread. So perhaps this can rest with normal ] practices unless something really serious arises. ] (]) 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::What am I not getting? I think I got it perfectly right. What I was told by editors on the talk page (in most authoritarian terms) was that any "conservative Christian" views of the Bible would be pre-determined to be inadmissible and insignificant to the article. Oh, but there's no bias here at all, no NPOV violation, nahhh.... It must be just me, eh? ] /]/ 05:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Please read again ]. In an article about a historical event, Misplaced Pages is interested in the views of historians, archaeologists, and scholars of other relevant fields. Misplaced Pages is less interested in the views of religious bodies. That is not to say we don't mention them. There is an entire article on ], which could stand to gain some significant expansion. Some confusion may also arise from the use of the word "fringe". Misplaced Pages's ] refers to viewpoints that are held by few or no scholars in relevant fields, implies nothing about the total number of people who believe something. You've been on Misplaced Pages for over six years, so I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. If the truth is that you simply don't like it, or you have a radically different interpretation of policy, your only recourse is to seek changes to the policies themselves. ] (]) 06:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I work with hundreds of Bible articles and have done so for years. On the standard Bible article, if any denomination or sect has a view or doctrine on the subject, we always give it in due impartiality, without presuming to declare whose theology is "correct" or who is a "heretic" if they dissent. There are only a relatively few notorious POV backwaters like Exodus and Genesis that seem to attract a polemic mentality that says "Christians and Jews views of their own Bible are all disqualified - WE'LL tell them what to believe about it and only our approved sources count. Come here if you want to see an opinion piece written by wikipedians telling you what to believe about the Bible!" ] /]/ 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Instead of placing tags, why don't you propose additions and boldly add them to the article? ] (]) 06:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Or is this really a whole dramatastic dispute over a couple little words like "consensus"? ] (]) 06:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Why is there a ]? Is it never safe to use it? ] /]/ 06:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You say there are too few opinions. Other editors disagree. It would help if, on the article's talk page, you actually provided, with sources, the viewpoints being neglected. ] (]) 06:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::A historicity section in any article is going to consist ''exclusively'' of content drawn from actual historians. ] is determined by the proportion of adherents amongst respected scholars in the field - the raw number of people who believe in a point of view is irrelevant. If you want to change the policy, you are free to try, but you will be tilting at windmills. ] (]) 05:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::If we did start using the raw numbers criteria and a major religion (15 million members) said that the Garden of Eden was located in present-day Jackson County, Missouri, would we have to give that equal weight in our articles about American history? How big does the religion have to be? How about the one that says that the 75 million years ago the Evil Lord Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs? Is that one big enough? How about the one with the Beer Volcano and the Stripper Factory? --] (]) 05:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Looking at the article, it seems like the disputed perspective goes beyond one section, and although it is a fundamentally religious story in today's society, there is little effort made to say what religious consensus is about the date and place issues. If you're going to write about the Scientology volcano story (see ]), you're naturally going to go on in depth about what that group has to say about it, and indeed, that article does. If that article focused only on "what academics think really happened" it would be one of Misplaced Pages's shortest articles. :) ] (]) 05:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::] is an article about the historical migration of Jewish slaves from Egypt to Israel. ] is an article about a religious text written about said migration. There could probably be a hatnote at ] explaining this. ] (]) 05:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::So ] is an article about a historical place in what is now Independence, Missouri, and the ] is a religious text written about said location. Gotcha. Unless, of course, you believe all of those pesky historians who say that neither the Exodus or the garden of Eden are historical. --] (]) 06:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::You know, I look at it again, and I was wrong. ] is an article about a religious text, and it needs major expansion. ] is, according to its introduction, an article about a story within the book, and according to the body of the article, an article about historians' opinions of that story. It seems there could be some merging, or splitting, or...something. I don't know. It's like a bait and switch: The intro tells you this is an article about a story, but then spends only one paragraph talking about the story. So you follow the link through to the article on the book the story is in, and that doesn't have much either. And yeah, you make a great point. This sort of split wouldn't work for everything. 90% of article on old testament events would become "ain't nobody got evidence for that". ] (]) 06:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::You want to split off the theology from the evidence that it didn't happen, and that ''doesn't'' sound like a POV fork to you? ] (]) 08:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::I Don't know what I want, actually. I was simply trying to rationalize the existence of two separate articles, which is already the case. ] (]) 08:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	* Till has been consistently pushing fringe views (and was supporting Paul Bedson when he was around), and appears to view himself as the defender of the fringe. What is really needed is an RFCU or someone to file at arbitration enforcement under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions with the evidence. Can someone please notify me if one is set up, ] (]) 08:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	* I agree that this user is very problematic and probably he should be topic banned. ] 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I would agree. The editor has been pushing fringe views over a wide variety of articles, so a topic ban ought to include all topics related to religion, history, archeology and fringe and psuedoscience. ] (]) 13:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	* Can't see that this incident requires a topic ban. The claim of widespread problems is not currently supported. Such evidence could be gathered at an RfC/U if needed. But really all that seems needed is here is 1) ask the user what additions they want and what sources they are using, and 2) basically ignore the rest if no such specificity is forthcoming (with a reminder of NOTAFORUM). Edit warring and the like might, of course lead to edit warring reports. It is true though that tags and claims that a POV is not adequately represented, actually need specific back-up on the talk page of text proposals and sources, otherwise such tags should be removed. ] (]) 13:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			(The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value)
	* Reluctantly, I support a topic ban in this case. Til Eulenspiegel has made it abundantly clear that he will continue demanding that the voice of God be given parity with the voice of historians and other scientists and that simply reporting what the religionists believe will not satisfy him -- religion and science must be given equal weight and both must be presented in Misplaced Pages's voice. It has become abundantly clear that Til Eulenspiegel is unable to maintain a neutral point of view on any topic where his religion and science are in conflict. The fact that his preferred method of pushing his POV is through personal attacks and edit warring simply exacerbates the root problem. --] (]) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (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.
	::You evidently see the world's major faiths as illegitimate and want your selected "scientists" to have the only say on how scripture is to be interpreted on Bible articles. That is the problem, and it is a problem of your Bias. I want to be able to read what ALL points of view are on the topic, not just yours (or mine). There are differences of opinion when it comes to how scripture is meant to be interpreted, but you are claiming your "scientific" interpretation holds such a magical priority over all other theological interpretations that it alone even deserves mention. Furthermore, you are attempting to build a "consensus" of editors by throwing a muzzle on any party that dissents from your interpretation of scripture. That will never be a true consensus, and that method of getting "consensus" also has zero to do with the Scientific Method. The Scientific method takes things that can be proven through experimentation to validate hypotheses. Nothing like that has occurred here; the same viewpoints have existed centuries before any of us were born and nothing has ever settled the controversy; claiming that "we are right because everyone agrees and nobody on your side counts" is merely cheerleading and attempting to claim a priority for your own bias. ] /]/ 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			More specifically this line:
	:::I will wait for Jimbo's verdict, meanwhile I would like to point that everybody would see that it is ridiculous to reject the ] on the grounds that the Pope stated that scientists should not attempt to research what was "before" the Big Bang (according to what Stephen Hawking once wrote in ''A Brief History of Time''). It is easy to see this when we discuss theology vs. physics but people tend to conflate theology with history, they don't understand that what is a valid theological argument could be bollocks in history (as an empirical science). We have no right to claim that it would be wrong theology (since the "correct" theology varies according to one's church membership or lack of it), but it is OK to say that Til's views are fringe history. In an YouTube video (search for The Big Questions - Is the Bible still relevant today) a woman rabbi declared that it is the business of historians to decide the historicity of Exodus (or David's kingdom?), but she will continue to maintain her theology based upon the biblical story of the Exodus regardless of what historians decide; she said it is not her business to meddle with historians or something like that. ] (]) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (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)
	::::What are we trying to discuss here? Is that a red herring or what? I have never expressed any opinion on Ekpyrotic universe, don't even know what it means, nor on the Pope or the Big Bang Theory, nor on Stephen Hawking's book. Is there a point to this? I do note you are very good at drawing arguments by analogy to portray me as "fringe" however. ] /]/ 20:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Your standpoint was "theology trumps history", my analogy was "theology attempting to trump physics is ridiculous, therefore theology attempting to trump history is ridiculous". I did not get this wrong: you maintain that historicity judged historically gets trumped by a theological assertion that there is historicity (historicity through theological fiat). For Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner there are different kind of truths: theological truth is different from historical truth: a story does not have to be historically accurate in order to inspire true faith. In fact, no religious people except fundamentalists believe that religion should dictate scientific outcomes. So, you are not an ordinary believer, content with ], you are advocating "theology/fundamentalism trumps science". Most religious people from my part of the world made peace with science being autonomous from religion. ] (]) 23:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::You've yet again demolished that poor straw man good and proper, because my position has never ONCE been "theology trumps history". Complete and utter strawman. My position has always been "Don't just describe one viewpoint. Tell all viewpoints." I even want viewpoints I disagree with to be told, so when I read articles about them, I can get some insight on where these viewpoints are coming from. You on the other hand don;t want to suffer viewpoints you disagree with to be even explained or allowed a voice. ] /]/ 23:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::That might be a valid point, had you not chosen to tag the 'historicity' section of the article. You have failed to demonstrate that that section lacked balance, in terms of material appropriate to that section - instead, you seem to be arguing that it should be 'balanced' by material which is beyond the scope of a section on the historicity of the exodus. 'Other viewpoints' don't belong in a section which isn't discussing them... ] (]) 23:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Is this like a willful refusal to comprehend? What I am saying specifically, once again, is that there are '''Other viewpoints about the Historicity of Exodus beside the one viewpoint represented in that section''' (as well as the "correct theological interpretation" endorsed in the very next sentence), and I am notifying all editors who come across the article, with this tag, that it might be a good idea to spend some constructive time looking for '''more''' viewpoints from various other schools of thought to be added. I know it is not something that can be discussed in terms of consensus and unanimity, and it's a classic tell-tale sign of "POV-pushing" to make claims of unanimity about something that is, in truth, still debated. ] /]/ 23:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::And when asked to provide citations for these other viewpoints, you have failed to provide them. vWhere are they? ] (]) 23:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::At this point, I'm just trying to convince you that there is more than one viewpoint on the historicity of the Exodus as well as how the Exodus is to be interpreted theologically, the two assertions made in the first two sentences, and therefore we need a tag for "more viewpoints". I haven't got anywhere, because you still seem to prefer to believe there is only one monolithic viewpoint, and everyone else is "fringe". I know what some alternative viewpoints are, but I might not even know the full range of viewpoints on these issues. The tag ] is merely to state literally that there are "too few opinions". Its usage should not be an unpardonable offense. ] /]/ 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::If you "know what some alternative viewpoints are", why haven't you told anyone what they are, in spite of multiple requests? Nobody has asked you to provide ''all'' of them - just to prove that such viewpoints exist. Please do so. ] (]) 00:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::A very long page could probably be written with published sources for alternate views on the historicity of the Exodus and also how it is interpreted by various groups. With a little time I could surely be able to find a good representative. I really liked your comment on Jimbo's talk where you said ''See ] - our article does not assert that "the matter has finally been resolved". To the contrary, it makes clear that opinions differ.'' ANd as I replied, ''That sounds good, and I hope we will be able to say that about other articles on the topic.'' I am suggesting that if it can be conceded in ] that there are multiple viewpoints on whether or not Moses lived, surely this is a good model for neutrality and we can similarly elaborate in ] on the various current ideas about the historicity of the Exodus or what exactly Moses did there if anything, without pretending there is a monolithic unanimity among all scholarship of all stripes on this question. ] /]/ 00:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I didn't ask you to write 'a very long page' I asked you to demonstrate that the alternate viewpoints regarding the historicity of the exodus exist by '''citing one'''. Please do so. ] (]) 00:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::I'll look for a good one as soon as I get a chance. But in the meantime the stark contrast between what you get from reading ] and ] should make a good point. ] /]/ 01:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::What 'stark contrast'?. As far as academic scholarship (as opposed to theology) is concerned, whether there ever was an actual 'Moses' or not can clearly never be historically determined - it could be pure myth, of maybe it has its distant roots in oral traditions concerning a real individual. The events described in exodus however are simply incompatible with information derived from Egyptology, archaeology and other sources of data though - and accordingly, academia rejects exodus as an accurate historical account. The only 'point' is that there are some things that academic research can't prove one way or another, and some things it can. ] (]) 01:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("{{tq|or called for a moratorium on changes}}") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content ({{tq|Only one active discussion-engaged user}}). Other editors, like @], have been calling them out for this as well.
	::::::::I have no problem with rendering theology-as-theology. I have a problem with rendering theology-as-history. You were told on the talk page that including theology is OK, it just does not decide historicity, since historicity is a scientific matter, not a theological matter. The tags you added attacked the scientific soundness of the references and other editors were infuriated because such tags were an accusation that they have misrepresented the scientific consensus. You are of course free to include theology, but not to challenge the references in the historicity section. Just don't claim that theology would be part of the scientific debate: it isn't. Theology is theology, science is science. Both are notable, but just as oil and water they don't mix together in the historicity section of the article. ] (]) 23:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::We're talking about events that, if they happened, would be well before 1000 BC. It is false to pretend that there is a single view of history that has been "proven" correct by some science experiment. There are still multiple conflicting views of history, especially for anything that long ago. What's more, there is a Hindu view of history, a Christian view of history, a Jewish view of history, a Muslim view of history, etc. and these are all widespread views of history that exist in the world today; we cannot really declare any of those views incorrect "by consensus" especially without actual solid proof. That's why we originally had a NPOV policy, that's why it might make sense for someone to add a tag requesting for "more views" to be added to a historicity section on a theological topic. ] /]/ 23:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.
	::::::::::How about "Science is about the facts and facts should be valid for everyone, regardless of religious affiliation"? Evidence for the Exodus does not appear by fiat, be it Christian fiat, Muslim fiat or Hindu fiat. And if there is no real evidence for it, then it is considered unhistorical until such evidence appears. Of course there can only be one sort of evidence: real evidence. Evidence is not categorized as Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. ] (]) 00:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::If there is no evidence one way or another, then normally (any other article) we would impartially say "There is no evidence one way or the other", rather than "This certainly never happened, because there is no evidence one way or another." On the same principle of the example given on WP:OR, that we don't describe the number of wars fought after the UN was founded as "only x number of wars" nor do we describe it as "golly gee look how many wars", we simply give the number of wars and leave it at that for the reader to form their own opinion. ] /]/ 00:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			There's a content dispute under-riding most of this, which frankly is probably best adjudicated at this point by literally anyone other than Toa or myself. The meat of this ANI is wholly independent of the content dispute, except insofar as Toa's apparently not been engaging in the most NPOV way with editors when it comes to sourcing requirements. I want to point out that despite Toa's reality-bending insistence I've been pretty open to admitting a different proposal for a change from others was better than my own idea. In an attempt to placate his revert-happy self on what I was sure would be controversial (removing 'conservative' from the dominant ideology of the party) I started by making a discussion thread highlighting that the sources that were being used didn't make that claim, including direct quotes from the papers. Except for admonishing editors for wanting change, he's mostly elected to just straight up ignore any substantive discussion over the exact thing he's reverting. This is clearly OWN and POV editing, and it looks like previous attempts to caution him for edit warring were met with ''. I'd honestly like to bow out of editing that page entirely for a while for ''so'' many reasons, but I don't want to leave it in a state where one editor has declared an article theirs.
	::::::::::::I don't ''know'' if the Exodus ever happened, in lack of positive evidence no one could ''know'' that it has ever took place, so maybe only God Almighty knows if it ever happened. But to mainstream historians the probability that it happened at the time indicated by the biblical chronology is so microscopically small that they tend to think that it has never happened as described in the Bible. In this case it applies what I have already indicated: by default any event in unhistorical, it only becomes historical if there is evidence for it. The same way there has to be some empirical evidence before physicists could affirm that ] are real. That is why no physicist ''knows'' if the strings are real. ] (]) 00:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			'''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Since he has launched a pre-emptive appeal to Jimbo, let's await the ruling by Jimbo. ] (]) 19:11, 22 June 2013 (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)
	::Guy Macon is now templating my user talk every few hours, stalking me and assuming authority to close my discussions on completely separate topics' talk pages. What gives with the ]ment? Drop the firebrand already. ] /]/ 20:00, 22 June 2013 (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)
	:::Guy Macon was correct in putting that template in your talk page as you are patently ] through the website. Frankly, your behavior is not helping your cause. ] 20:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: {{u|Warrenmck}} wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page.
	::::I am not Forum shopping. You have made another unjustified reproach. ] /]/ 20:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:What {{u|Warrenmck}} does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up ''all the time''. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach.
			:For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was {{u|Czello}}. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages.
			:I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've ''added'' additional citations to address {{u|Warrenmck}}'s concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. '''] ]''' 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a ''minor faction'', per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that
			::{{quote|Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge?}}
			::and you responded
			::{{quote|Which is labeling the party as it.}}
			::Which isn't how NPOV editing works.
			::Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus.
			::{{tq|I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes}}
			::Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point . Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. ''I did not make the change I knew would be controversial'', that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal () Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events.
			::This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. ] 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though.
			:::What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? '''] ]''' 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Literally in this ANI:
			::::{{tq|Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"}}
			::::That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page:
			::::{{tq|Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing.}} ] 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You are making a distinction without a difference. '''] ]''' 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. ] (]) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* ] appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. ] ] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::You are '''literally''' forumshopping, as you are "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators...in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you ''want''." Furthermore, "queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions" and you haven't done it. ] 20:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			*:I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks ]:
			*:{{quote|An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.}}
			*:The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here ] and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a ''hell'' of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards.
			*:Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has ]ed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As ] said, {{tq|"Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?"}} ] 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. ] 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place ''after'' I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer ] problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an ] mentality. ] (]) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. and . I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff:
			*::::{{tq|The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late}}
			*::::Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @] appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up ''all over''[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. ] 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. ] (]) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find ''years'' worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments.
			*::::::If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling ] 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. ] (]) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. ] (]) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			* This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. ] (]) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Respectfully ] and ] are behavioural problems. ] (]) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse ().
	::::::I am not in the least forum shopping. First of all, I did not open this ANI about myself. So I didn't exactly come here looking for any "answer". Yet some of my other conversations on other unrelated matters have been rediected here to this ANI about me, by Guy Macon. Where else am I "forum shopping"? ] /]/ 21:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree ''at all'' makes this pretty ] behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for ]. ] 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''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)
	::::::Please note that my placing warning templates on Til Eulenspiegel's is done out of basic fairness. His behavior is likely to result in a block, and I prefer that an editor gets plenty of warning before being blocked. I certainly would expect to be warned and given a chance to stop the behavior that I am being warned about rather than being blocked without warning. Til Eulenspiegel has been removing all warnings soon after they are placed (which he has every right to do), so we know that he has read them. --] (]) 21:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:{{tq|Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.}}
	* I agree with IRWolfie that this needs to be handled at ]. AN/I does not deal well with long term TE because it takes a long time to go through someones entire history to determine the merits of the complaint. I happen to agree with the merits of this complaint, being familiar with Til's editing over the years, but this isn't the kind of thing you can just post a few obvious diffs of. We have discretionary sanctions for a reason, so let's let someone like Sandstein who is skilled at this kind of investigation take a look and determine what sanctions - if any - are necessary. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 21:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. ] 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Any sanction would essentially be for my boldly disagreeing that all the various Jewish, Muslim and Christian interpretations and views on the Exodus amount to a "FRINGE theory". Other than that offense, I ain't done no wrong. ] /]/ 21:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Everyone in prison is innocent ]<sup>]</sup></font> 21:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Yes, until they were proven guilty before being sentenced. Hence the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". Without it, "justice" is a very different concept. ] /]/ 21:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::You miss my point, perhaps it is an idiom of which you're not aware. In the US there is a common saying among prisoners that they are all innocent (it may actually not be true of real prisons but it's common in prison fiction). The point is, it is expected that you don't think you're wrong because it's you who is thinking it. So when you say "I ain't done no wrong" it is superfluous because as the accused it is assumed that you believe you are in the right otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. And if you were to be sanctioned at a venue like ] you would say that you've done no wrong just as convicted prisoners maintain their innocence. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 22:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Maybe I miss your point because getting it relies on seeing it from the "guilty unless proven innocent", or Napoleonic, view of jurisprudence, a view of jurisprudence I was not brought up under. THe point of "innocent until proven guilty", or English jurisprudence, is to protect innocent people from being wrongly punished on the mere whim of a more powerful person. ] /]/ 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::No, it has nothing to do with that. All it takes to "get it" is having seen ] or almost any other prison movie made in the past 20 years, or simply having had someone explain it to you as I did. In no way does understanding it require one to hold any sort of view on justice. All you need to know is that it's a common joke/saying/idiom in American prison fiction that even when it's obvious that some prisoner has committed and been convicted of a crime they still maintain their innocence. The fact that you can even somehow tie this in your mind to my or other people's view on jurisprudence is astonishingly ridiculous. This is not a complicated concept and the fact that it's taking so many words to explain it to you is a proper demonstration of how annoying it can be to discuss anything with you. You just don't get it. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 22:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::Why, I have no problem at all understanding your words at face value, but if I'm missing something else, it must be that you need to express it more straightforwardly, since I cannot read your mind. Basically, my conscience does not rebuke me terribly for my not agreeing that the doctrines and theologies of major world religions are now suddenly a "FRINGE theory" - but if that's my crime, then I admit it, guilty as charged. In addition, I do not believe my conscience was created to answer to your conscience. Is there anything else here you'd like to discuss? ] /]/ 23:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			::I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. ] (]) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions.
			::If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources.
			::On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. ] (]) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::See ]: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
			::::Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist?
			::::If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. ] (]) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I have not claimed that I prefer news sources over academic sources, not that news sources override academic consensus. You are asking me to defend a position I haven't actually taken i.e. you are strawmanning. ] (]) 10:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			If I am following this properly, via the thread on the linked talk page:
			# The OP made a thread on ] saying that we should change the article to say that it was "anti-intellectual" and "far-right".
			# Toa_Nidhiki05 said that this was a bad idea, and some stuff about previous consensus against doing this.
			# ???
			# AN/I thread
			Is there anything I'm missing here? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? ] 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::Theologically, you are not fringe. There are many millions of fundamentalists, especially outside of Europe. You are fringe historically, i.e. scientifically. There is a difference between theology and history, the later is a science, the former isn't a science and does not require weighing of evidence, scientific method, falsifiability, review by peers, criticism in scientific journals, seeking to forge scientific consensus or to become mainstream and so on. You seem to think that because an argument is theologically valid it should also be historically (i.e. scientifically) valid. Theology does not trump history. History, as a science, is autonomous from every religious faith. Historicity can only be judged historically, it cannot be judged theologically. Five hundred years ago it was a different matter, but science in the modern sense and writing encyclopedias are products of the Enlightenment. We cannot behave as if the Enlightenment never happened. ] (]) 23:18, 22 June 2013 (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)
	:No. You don't know what I am "theologically" because I have not come here to preach or tell anyone what to believe, and you are unjustified in labelling my theology "fringe" or "fundamentalist" when I have not even shared what it is and consider it private. Once again, maybe you'll get it this time, I am calling for "MORE VIEWPOINTS" to be added to the article. I may be considered a fool for thinking the Exodus is relevant to theologians more than scientists. I may be considered a fool for wanting the article to explain what various theologians of all stripes say -- instead of the single, one-size fits all, "this is the only allowable correct interpretation of scripture" given in the article that I am being pilloried for questioning. Once again, you may find this utterly mind-boggling, but our role is not to make a determination about who has the Truth and who doesn't. Another concept you may find mind-boggling is that more than one viewpoint can actually coexist on the same page, side by side, without either one "trumping" the other. ] /]/ 23:28, 22 June 2013 (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 ==
	::If you had politely stated that you don't challenge the scientific consensus and that you don't accuse other editors of misrepresenting it, we would not have had this discussion on ANI. Nobody objected to describing the Exodus theologically in other sections of the article. From the vanilla assertion that many millions of true believers think that it really happened, it just does not follow that the Exodus was historical. As simply as that: don't conflate historicity with theological dogma and you won't have problems in editing the article. On Misplaced Pages you are an advocate of fundamentalism and what flavor of fundamentalism you subscribe to is less relevant. But it is clear that you are discontent with the academical arrangements which arose from the Enlightenment, I added once a quote from Allan Bloom about it in your user space. I think you object to the scientific study of religion in general, since you think it is a sacrilege. Bloom more or less made the same point, albeit in a very elegant and palatable way. ] (]) 23:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, but I do not consider myself a fundamentalist and I think you are trying to use that as a pejorative label for me, or something I am not associated with at all, thank you. ] /]/ 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
	::::You mean you made a reasoned defense of fundamentalism at ] and you don't even buy your own arguments/quotations? ] (]) 00:10, 23 June 2013 (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:
	:::::On that page, as anyone can see, I have quoted Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Mormon, fundamentalist, Ancient Greek and scholarly viewpoints to demonstrate that there are a wide range of disparate viewpoints represented about a topic that some are claiming a monolithic monopoly of allowable interpretations on. Obviously, I do not myself subscribe to all of the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Mormon, fundamentalist, Ancient Greek and scholarly viewpoints I have quoted on that page. In fact, I don't believe I have ever said whether I myself subscribe to any of these viewpoints, or none of them entirely, because of my firm belief that what theology I believe or don't believe is my own business and irrelevant to[REDACTED] articles being neutral, and should be left out of it. ] /]/ 00:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			*
	::::::Either way, that page is propaganda for fundamentalism ''in general''. It's ] and the tags you have added in ] are ] in accordance with your advocacy for a fundamentalist understanding of the religious narratives. In fact, your whole apologetics, talk page by talk page and article by article, that myths cannot be called myths is an ]. ], since it follows from how the academe works. ] (]) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			*
	The article ] where I tagged it, currently states: "''The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible, and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.''" I have no problem with such a viewpoint being mentioned and properly attributed alongside other viewpoints. However I believe this particular viewpoint is not a consensus, but reflects the chosen favorite viewpoint of some editors, because it basically says in so many words "Everyone now agrees this never happened at all, but is merely a myth or fairy-tale invented by the Jews to feel special." And I'm sorry, but no, I do NOT subscribe to that point of view - and it really bothers me to see it represented as a "consensus" when obviously it's not. "Opinions differ" just as the ] article says and ] should also say. And it bothers me even more to see editors being required to accept and go along with this "consensus" out of fear that they will be threatened with being muzzled, ejected and banned from the discussion if they even dare to ask for "more viewpoints". ] /]/ 01:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			*
	:This is actually not such a bad point. Things to consider with this sentence in the lead of ] and at the beginning of the Historicity section:
	:* The general context of the article (''not'' the Historicity section) is religion more than history.
	:* "biblical scholars" suggests theologists more than people working primarily in history or literary criticism.
	:* Claims of academic consensus require very strong sourcing per ]. (I don't have access to the source cited after the sentence in question -- Dictionary of the Old Testament --, so I don't know whether it meets this standard .)
	:* I have a hunch that such a consensus exists in Europe but not in the US, and among scientifically oriented biblical scholars but not among theologically oriented biblical scholars. There might be implicit assumptions in the source to that effect. (Again, for lack of access I don't know.)
	:* Theological opinions are only of marginal interest for the Historicity section. ''If'' there is such a theological consensus, it's worth mentioning (as is the case at the moment), or if there is none, it's worth mentioning in one or two sentences that opinions are divided. But overall, in the Historicity section it's not the opinions of "biblical scholars" in general that matters but the opinions of those academics approaching the topic with the primary goal of finding facts, not religious fulfillment. ] 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			Not only Scherbatsky12 was aware about, and even deleted the GS/AA notice , they still made several articles in its violation regardless and made GS/AA breaching additions that also include POV poorly sourced edits. ] (]) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::In the past there were more sources in the article, so the case for consensus was even stronger, but it seems that it has been edited with brevity in mind. See e.g. {{diff|The Exodus|561198338|476038711}}. ] (]) 12:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	* For what it's worth, I should note that while looking into the general subject further, I see we have a big difference in our perspective between the secular presentation of ] and the Biblical emphasis of ]. I think that the right approach is somewhere between the two, incorporating all the data on both perspectives - when people look up articles on this topic, they will often have heard of it from a Biblical context, and they definitely should see a presentation of all the details of the story, but they should also see all the details of the archeologists' approach. ] (]) 14:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			::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)
			== Caribbean Hindustani ==
	==== Boomerang?====
			*{{articlelinks|Caribbean Hindustani}}
			This is probably not the appropriate page, but I couldn't find a better one. If an admin may have a look at the version history of the ] article - there's two quite new editors battling out a dispute since December. Maybe some administrative guidance would help them. Thanks and kind regards, ] 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	] has more or less admitted that he began stalking my contribs today simply because he didn't care for something I said to him in an unrelated AfD deletion discussion about the 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. He followed me onto the Exodus page, opened the above ANI about me, directed four nuisance templates to me that were unjustified, and then followed me to ] claiming the right to close down my conversation there (where I feel I have a right to raise matters with an editor whose opinion I value and judgement I trust more than many other editors) as well as to ], a user essay that had a BLANK TALK PAGE until I posted feedback about the User essay there today, and he accused me of using that hitherto EMPTY TALK PAGE as a "FORUM" to solicit new opinions about this ANI, insisting that the conversation be closed and redirected to this ANI he opened up about me. ] /]/ 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC) At this point I simply want him to drop his fire brand, get off his high horse, and stop persecuting me, find something else to do on[REDACTED] today. Thanks. ] /]/ 21:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This: , may or may not be helpful. I'd also add that I can't force someone to discuss something on the talkpage: ] (]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That would make sense if you'd tried discussing on the talk page, but you didn't head there until Tarbly asked you to. You can't force someone to discuss something but you can try discussing which you haven't done until now. Expecting the other party to start a discussion is rarely good editor behaviour especially when you are edit warring. Instead it's like a lame kids 'they started it' defence. The only way you can prove an editor refuses to discuss on the talk page is by trying otherwise you can both be counted as refusing to discuss. To be clear except the first sentence, this applies to both of you. ] (]) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written.
			:He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information.
			:I had talk with the user and explained several times in the edit and on talk page as well. I have explained everything which I added with source unlike him. ] (]) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Danny5784 ==
	:Update: Guy has apologized for accusing me of using Jimbo's talk to "Forumshop", and has retracted the accusation. In the interest of "keeping the conversation to a centralized location" I am also accepting his apology here, and hope there will be no other hard feelings arising from factual issues we may differ on. ] /]/ 21:32, 22 June 2013 (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:
			* 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)
	:::Unfortunately despite his previous apology it seems as if Guy has hardened his heart for the sake of the Exodus once again, and has again picked up his firebrand. He is now stalking ALL of my contribs and undoing them with impunity. Talk about vengeance. ] /]/ 21:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			<!--{{hat|1=A wild ] appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}-->
			:Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.
			:Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than ] so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. ] (]) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. ] (]) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. ] (]/]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear {{confirmed}} result.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. ] (]) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{ping|Liz}} I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			<!--{{hab}}-->
			:::::::No problem, ever, with unarchiving, ]. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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)
	::::"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!" ] (]) 22:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Clerical note that this user is not the ] DannyS712. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article ==
	:::::There should be policies against stalking and harrassment. Oh wait there are, they just need to be enforced. ] /]/ 22:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{u|LivinAWestLife}} made a large change to the Republican Party article which changed the ideology of the party from the consensus Center-right to fascist. They quickly then changed the text to "far-right" . Any seasoned editor should know such behavior is beyond reckless and clearly disruptive. ] (]) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::When I see an editor who is violating Misplaced Pages policy, I am allowed to examine that editor's other contributions. If when I do I see that you have inserted into an article, and that when another editor ], I see that are willing to to keep the gibberish in '''while having the unmitgated gall to quote BRD while you yourself follow BRRD''', then yes, I ''do'' have the right to and ask you to follow the basic rules of grammar. If you don't like it, start following the rules like the rest of us have to do. --] (]) 02:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Are you kidding? I didn't "insert" that phrasing, it must have been another editor. Yes, I did revert to it as the previous wording, because at the time I believed it was preferable to the newly changed wording. (and I am not certain it is "patent nonsense" either.) After more tweaking by other editors, it now reads completely differently, and apparently nobody objects to the current wording. No problem. This is all par for a day's work on wikipedia, and usually it's not a federal case. But I know how it is, when you are desperate to find a pretext to have someone muzzled and removed but don;t have a good enough reason, you will then go over their work with a fine toothed comb looking for anything you can seize on and wave around as a sign of trouble. ] /]/ 02:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Actually, quite the opposite. I am trying very hard ''not'' to get you into trouble (not that I think I could; admins have this habit of looking at the evidence rather than just doing what Guy tells them to do.) For example, right now we are discussing this ''not'' because I reported you or in any way tried to get you in trouble. I just saw that you had written something that isn't actually English and quietly corrected it. Then you made another change that ''was'' standard English, and of course I did not touch that change. Then you -- nobody else -- decided to raise a huge stink about it here, accusing me of "stalking" you, "harassing" you and (yes, you actually said this) "persecuting" you. So how exactly is my quietly fixing your grammar error "looking for anything you can seize on and wave around as a sign of trouble"? '''You''' are the one who brought it up here as evidence of me "persecuting" you. "''Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed! Did you hear that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?''" -- http://www127.pair.com/critical/food-05.htm --] (]) 05:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::I have examined the recent diffs at ].&nbsp; An IP the word "claims" to "assures", which leads to the subsequent exchange of edits.&nbsp; According to www.m-w.com, each of the two words involved are ''vt''.&nbsp; An applicable meaning for "claim" is, "to assert in the face of possible contradiction", and for "assure" it is "to inform positively".&nbsp; I think the issue here is the extent to which the new construct is awkward.&nbsp; An awkward construct is neither "utter gibberish" nor "patent nonsense".&nbsp; ] (]) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::. ] (]) 22:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)		:Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 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. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry, I don't view youtube, so I don't know what you are seeing there.&nbsp; ] (]) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:::Also worth noting that ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. ] (]) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you ''really'' have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see ]. ] (]) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. ] (]) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Couldn't you have just used inspect element? ] (]) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You're taking a ''very'' long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. ] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «''Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back''» and there are no consequences? ] (]) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. ] (]) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their ]. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. ] (]) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. ] (]) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Editor repeatedly reverting edits ==
	Is it really true that "you're not allowed" to have User names in a section title? Because that would be news to me, I've never heard such a thing before, and just looking at the table of contents for this page at the moment, I see about fifty violations of this "rule". So is this really a "rule", or is someone just making up "rules" here? ] /]/ 02:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}}
	:Sure you can have usernames, but not accusations against users formulated as if they were statements of fact.] 02:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::'assures its earliest origins from' = 'informs positively its earliest origins from', ergo. . ! Good grief. No native speaker would accept either form. If not gibberish, it is patently mangled or garbled English, and supporting 'assures' over the limpid alternative has only one function, i.e., misusing the word 'assure' to validate a claim as though there were some authority to trust it. That's the kind of niggling bible-bashers indulge in to weave around, over through, the neutral or sceptical analytic spirit informing modern scholarship.] (]) 14:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.!
	Admins, please note that Guy Macon is continuing to ] my contribs today, follow me into every article I edit, send me templates threatening me with blocks for petty things, and make my experience here unpleasant as possible. He has made it clear that he doesn't believe ] and ] apply to him, because in his mind I am illegitimate, I am "guilty" of something (presumably, not subscribing to his views on theology). Once again, I repeat, I JUST WANT THE DOGGING TO STOP. ] /]/ 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			I tried to communicate on ] but editor just went away!
			For such behavior the editor has been
	==== Close and send to ]? ====		This editor last time also pushed me to violate ] ,
			While i was trying to improve the ] article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per
			] where it is clearly mentioned
			"''In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.''"
	I would like to focus on the following comments:
			Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand.
	:"Till has been consistently pushing fringe views (and was supporting Paul Bedson when he was around), and appears to view himself as the defender of the fringe. What is really needed is an RFCU or someone to file at arbitration enforcement under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions with the evidence. Can someone please notify me if one is set up?" (Quoted from post by IRWolfie, 08:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC))
			I don't know why the editor doesn't understand ] and ] are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense before, and now this again! ] (]) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:"I agree with IRWolfie that this needs to be handled at ]. AN/I does not deal well with long term because it takes a long time to go through someones entire history to determine the merits of the complaint. I happen to agree with the merits of this complaint, being familiar with Til's editing over the years, but this isn't the kind of thing you can just post a few obvious diffs of. We have discretionary sanctions for a reason, so let's let someone like Sandstein who is skilled at this kind of investigation take a look and determine what sanctions - if any - are necessary." (Quoted from post by Saedon, 21:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC))
			:Hello, ],
	Given the above, should we close this and refer it to ]? --] (]) 12:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:First ] is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sorry@] actually before this, i went on your to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided . ] (]) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's '''your''' action, not theirs. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::They are the one who started removing/reverting repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are . Plese see ] edit history. ] (]) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". ] is a bright line. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::They edit in group, while i started a discussion but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on ] but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. ] (]) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the ] for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? ] (]) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a ] sanction is appropriate here. - ] (]) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You are the one who opened this ANI on me, and you have been the main one repeatedly urging for my voice to be removed on any possible pretext from the equation, because that is your method of forming "consensus" on Exodus - have all dissenters ejected, and presto, instant "consensus". And it stinks. You spent the better part of yesterday dogging my contribs list, all day I kept seeing your name popping up on unrelated subjects where I had recently made an edit, undoing my work. You claim you are justified in doing this because in your mind I am guilty of some "policy violation" and therefore you have probable cause, rules like ] and ] therefore do not apply to you. I have been convicted of no policy violation, and I do not even know what policy I have supposedly violated. I have not forum shopped, despite a whole pack of accusations, made under the presumption that now I've challenged Exodus, anything and everything else I say or do on any topic can and will be held against me. I don't know how many more days this dogging me and harassment of me is going to continue -- but I just want it to be stopped now. Your only other answer to it being pointed out that stalking and harassment are against our rules, has been to mock and disdain the rules that say this, to try to make harassing others seem "cool". ] /]/ 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			::? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Yeh, I went to the ] noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my . What do you want to prove through this? ] (]) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with ] from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I read over ] discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on ]. Thanks again ] (]) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Usually, when an editor returns to their edit war after being blocked, without once contributing to the article talk page discussions, they are blocked.
	:: The policies that you have violated are linked to in the many user warnings that you have received....
			I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is ] , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent ], ] and and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --] (]) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I would also point out that it isn't just me. Many other Misplaced Pages editors have "persecuted" you by asking you to follow Misplaced Pages's behavioral standards.
	::This reminds me of the drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --] (]) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::So far, you are the only one who has declared me "guilty" of all these violations and attempted to execute punishment by following me into several other articles I have edited. You think ] doesn't apply to you. You need to come down off your high horse. We don't have a king, and you don't get to be judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one, declare me guilty by yourself with your abundance of silly templating me, and then punish me by stalking my contribs. ] /]/ 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:I don't know what you're up to, but , I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks ] (]) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq| I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above}} That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --] (]) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::], 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 ] ==
	::You've written the following at ]: ''Several Christian Churches and other religions teach that this is historical. These account for hundreds of millions of adherents. You will never see them as significant because you have an anti-religious bias.'' There are hundreds of million according whose mythology ] are you suggesting anyone not taking these stories seriously is biased against religions? I'm surprised at the rope given here. ] (]) 18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Done (for now). - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{IPvandal|2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528}}
			] please. ] ] 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:]? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--] ] 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. ] (]) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Semi-protected now, thanks ] ] (]) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			* IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			**{{ping|Isabelle Belato|Acroterion}} Needs talk page access yanked too.--] ] 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Done. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn ==
	:::Very clever "spin", but not a logical argument. No, I do not believe that is what I am suggesting at all. In fact, I don't believe I suggested any such thing. (Have you ever studied "logical fallacies?) ] /]/ 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{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)
	::::Explain? To me it looks like beliefs vs knowledge, the later verifiable the former not. ] (]) 18:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? ] (]) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've restored it to the pre-socking version and {{U|Daniel Case}} has semi-protected the article.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. ] (]) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Potential Block Evasion by IP 47.67.231.5 (Original IP range 47.69.0.0, first sock IP 80.187.75.118) ==
	:::::I can't give you a whole course in logical training here. Basically, whenever you formulate an argument in terms of "Are you suggesting xyz" when xyz is something I have not actually suggested at all, and then proceed to castigate me as if I had suggested xyz, that is a red flag giveaway of a fallacy in logic. See ] for more details. ] /]/ 18:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ].
	::::::You ''are'' suggesting that we take beliefs seriously, the more the adherents, the strong their case? Correct me if my understanding is wrong. ] (]) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.
	:::::::Your understanding is wrong, because you are taking what I actually said and transforming it into a different argument in your own words that is easier to attack, and attacking that position, but missing my actual position by a country mile. Again, read up on ]. ] /]/ 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::No. You made a statement and Yogesh Khandke made a quite logical inference from it, and to clarify, used an analogy. This is not 'spin', unless you wish to dismiss 95% of Plato's diaslogues and their logical methods as 'spin'. You're dodging a legitimate query, and worse still throwing out vague remarks about logic while showing none. There are many problematical deductions and assumptions in that remark, like the idea of several Christian churches and other religions (?) teaching Exodus is 'historical'. You are not required in mainstream Protestantism, or Catholicism, or Judaism to believe in the historicity of OT stories like the Exodus. The small number of fundamentalist Christian sects do not constitute, unlike the former, hundreds of millions of adherents. ] (]) 19:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::There are currently around 1.99 billion Christians and 2.04 billion Muslims, so we really need to rewrite ] along the lines of ]. :)
	:::::So it's a "logical inference" that I would have some opinion on the "boar tusk" theory, which I've never even heard of before, and not only that, I can be held accountable for that opinion even though I never spoke it, because you have "logically inferred" what it is? LOL I have no idea how many people take the boar tusk thing seriously. My understanding of "significant point of view" is that if a vast proportion of the Earth's inhabitants believe something and take it seriously, and there are like millions of sources verifying that they do believe it and take it seriously, then it is a "significant point of view" and it deserves to be explained on the[REDACTED] artile about that belief, along with any significant views to the contrary. That would include the "boar tusk" belief, if that is indeed a widespread belief that is taken seriously, I have no idea if it is or not. The other way of looking at it is to say "We know whose beliefs are correct and whose are incorrect, therefore we will decide this for everyone else on every article, and harass or threaten anyone who resists us." ] /]/ 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::The "boar tusk" story is a belief, just like the belief that God created the earth in six days and then rested on the seventh, or that a virgin delivered, or someone died and then became alive again, or that a stick was pointed and waters parted, or that all the species on the earth fitted on one boat, those are beliefs not knowledge, we don't take them seriously, however strongly they are held or how many soever hold them. This is of course what I understand Misplaced Pages is. ] (]) 22:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Ok Til Eulenspiegel, I would like to know, do you think beliefs ought to be reported as facts on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 22:58, 23 June 2013 (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)
	::::::::No, I don't and have not been advocating that any such belief ought to be reported as fact. I suppose this is a good question, it is important to clarify that this is <u>not</u> what I have ever called for, not even once, because often those I am arguing against will misrepresent me and deceptively attempt to re-cast it in those terms, using bad logic. I also do not think it is neutral to report such beliefs as "fiction" or any synonym. Neutrality for me includes recognizing that our readership around the world believes different things, and allowing this to be so, without trying to be an activist "force for change" to push things this way or that. Kind of like the prime directive on Star Trek. It is incumbent upon us to report and describe all the major points of view on every subject, not just our selected favorites. That is what the NPOV policy says, that is why the NPOV policy is so very important and not to be scoffed at or taken lightly, and that is why if an article is skewed by presenting only one POV as correct, it should be permissible to add a tag requesting second opinions beside just the one. Articles like these are telling readers who have other POVs "Sorry, but your belief system you were taught is wrong. We have never actually proved why it is wrong, but a bunch of people who are just plain smarter than you, all got together and agreed behind a closed door, that your belief system is wrong, and you weren't invited or included in the discussion, so you'll just have to accept that, too bad. And don't even try to change it or you will be pilloried as a dissenter." This is "neutrality"? This is what Misplaced Pages is good for? ] /]/ 23:22, 23 June 2013 (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 ==
	:::::::::So you seem to say that you would be happy with "XXX is what historians agree to and YYY is the popular belief" ] (]) 23:36, 23 June 2013 (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)
	::::::::::If historians happen to agree, which in truth is rarely the case. We have to avoid the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and not try to redefine "historian" in any exclusive sense, which a lot of historians would love to be able to do to get rid of other historians that disagree with them, but is nevertheless not neutral. Remember, there have been historians since the time of Herodotus, and not all of them have been correct, and it is a deceptive illusion to suppose that there is a monolithic consensus or some universal credential-bestowing board of approval among the historians of every nation in the world. If there are several schools of thought in evidence, the formula should be "XXX is what the AAA school of thought says , while historians from the BBB school of thought have argued YYY . The popular belief is ZZZ. " ] /]/ 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. ] (]/]) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{od}} You are right about historians agreeing or dis-agreeing for that matter. I for now am of the opinion that in the context of the subject, your statement looks kosher to me. ought to be a secondary source. ] (]) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			::I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but ''indef'' for a user who ''has'', generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked ''once''? ] (]) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. ] (]/]) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. ] ] 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. ] (]) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: {{tq|'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA)}}. Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. ] ] 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It looks to me like they understand ''what'' they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the ''why'' (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. ] (]) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Per our own internal classification (e.g. ]/]) it is formally a ], and the article ] is in the {{tl|political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:
			::::::*"The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
			::::::*"Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
			::::::*"When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."
			::::::I am not really sure why these sentences would, ''prima facie'', constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:
			::... that the ''']''' of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the ] perspective?
			:From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.
			:I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (]), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far <del>and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet</del>. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. ] (]/]) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. ] (]) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Amended, thanks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping|JPxG}} Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. ] ] 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. ] (]/]) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. ] (]/]) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what says:
			:::::{{tq|to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:}}
			:::::{{tq|''I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.''}}
			:::: says:
			:::::{{tq|Follow successfully, locate, as in ''I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck''. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.” }}
			:::: says:
			:::::{{tq|If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.}}
			:::::{{tq|''She had spent years trying to track down her parents.''}}
			:::::{{tq|''I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.''}}
			:::::{{tq|''The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.''}}
			:::::{{tq|''There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.''}}
			::::Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said {{tq|Get this politically divisive ] off the damned front page}} and {{tq|And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page.}} Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. ] ] 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says {{tq|"Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there."}} on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. ] (]) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: {{tq|I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment.}} This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			==== Proposal: commute block to topic ban ====
	:::::::::Let's look at it like this: in the history of Romania (or what is now Romania) there is a 1000 years gap or 1000 years silence. No historical evidence of anything happening there. Millions of Romanians believe that the Romanian people has historical continuity. Millions of Hungarians think that's false. How would you write such an article? If you take for granted the beliefs of millions Romanians, you make millions Hungarians unhappy and if you take for granted the beliefs of millions Hungarians you make millions Romanians unhappy. These cannot both be true at the same time, so writing an article affirming both beliefs as true is writing gibberish. Since in that gap nothing could be proven to be historical, no real event which happened then can be shown to have historicity. The same applies for Exodus (or Troy in 1850). Anyway, I find your line of reasoning quite weird: if you take for granted the faith of millions, then physics classes should teach about the ], on a par with geocentrism and heliocentrism and ]. No more physical experiments agreed behind a closed door and then taught to pupils in order to indoctrinate them with facts about the real world. No longer calling ] a delusion. It seems to me that your denial of science and scientific facts is a way wherein you want to eat your cake and still have it. And then accuse others of flawed logic because they point out that there is a contradiction between eating your cake and still having it. Your position has been shown to be absurd. I agree that the discussion among historians and theologians that myth cannot be simply equated with falsity is a lofty, sophisticated, high-brow concern, but pushing it to such practical extremes is untenable, even ludicrous. Not everything one learns in cultural anthropology classes could be transplanted in real life. Postmodernism may be fine and dandy as an epistemology of the social sciences, but mix postmodernism and physics and you get the ]. ] (]) 23:54, 23 June 2013 (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 ====
	:::::::::::The problem of Romanian and Hungarian historians each filling a 1000 year gap totally differently shouldn't be that big a problem for us. Presumably we would simply allow all points of view from all sides to be fully explained in their appropriate sections, without endorsing or refuting any of them. More than one POV can coexist on the same page, and the readers can make their own determination. What's so hard or mind boggling about that? ] /]/ 00:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			A discussion is needed on this to prevent ] from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.
			* '''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. ] (]) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' reinstating indef, '''support''' gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --] 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. ] (]/]) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per {{u|Voorts}} and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by {{u|GreenLipstickLesbian}}. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. ] (]) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' given the history documented by GreenLipstickLesbian, the revdel'd content described above, and the obvious foot-dragging in the appeal. If they ''are'' let back in then it should at least be an AP2 / Gensex topic ban given the user's inability to control their strong emotions in that topic area; but the previous outing coupled with the "track down" comment in particular crosses the line. --] (]) 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''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)
			== Anonymous8206 ==
	::::::::::::There is a technicality: popular opinion does not establish historicity. Only evidence establishes historicity. If you want to affirm that most Christians, Jews and Muslims think that the Exodus really happened, I have no objection. But don't conflate it with establishing historicity, since history (as a science) is not a democracy: when writing history books historians don't decide matters by popular vote. ] (]) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|Anonymous8206}}
			Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at ] for over a year. Examples: .
			They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::You have a No true Scotsman definition of "historian", I think. Actually, historians when writing books use a whole range pf all kinds of methods to "decide matters", some of them we may never know. The point is, and this may really blow your mind, but if there is no evidence about something, but plenty of disagreement, then in those cases ''it is not our role to decide matters''. It really is possible to have articles that state that there is disagreement among sources, without having to tell readers whose opinion is correct and incorrect. Even in Eastern Europe. It really is possible. I have heard that people there grow accustomed to always being told by authorities what to think about every subject. I am talking about a radically different philosophy, that may be new to you, called "using neutral language that lets the reader decide for themselves and make up their own mind what to think about a controversial subject". There doesn't always have to be a "winner" on every article, and our job was never to decide who the "winner" is, but only to give all major points of view as sourced, describe the elephant from as many angles as possible. ] /]/ 00:28, 24 June 2013 (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==
	::::::::::::To be more specific, Schliemann had what is takes to convince the mainstream historians, your millions of believers just don't have what it takes to convince the mainstream historians. ] (]) 00:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|result={{NAC}} Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			As the title suggests, this includes:
			*{{userlinks|SuvGh}}
	:::::::::::::The person who once told you it sounds like you would probably prefer "Citizendia" was right! ] /]/ 00:43, 24 June 2013 (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.
			*{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}}
	::::::::::::::Schliemann was an amateur and he harmed the site, but he produced evidence for his claim of discovering Troy. That's more than all modern and contemporary Jews, Christians and Muslims have done in respect to producing evidence for the Exodus. This is not about Misplaced Pages or Citizendium, it is about how science works. You fail to see that while on Citizendium only experts are allowed to edit, Misplaced Pages and Citizendium have the same criteria for reliable sources. I.e. they have the same view of who counts as a scholar, so stop insinuating about no true Scotsman. You fail to see that through such attacks you disqualify your own stance. Any ] editor knows that there are scholars and that there are wannabes, and that the two categories should not be conflated. ] (]) 01:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			::Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See ].
			Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::@Til Eulenspiegel: First of all, popular opinion or the opinion of non-scholars on scholarly topics is of no encyclopedic significance whatsoever. Second of all, WP is very much biased toward real qualified academic scholars from real universities writing in real academically reviewed journals and books. If you have a problem with that, you're in the wrong place. Third of all, we cover only significant views, not extreme minority or fringe views. Last of all, and most important, you have not explained why you failed to provide any reliable independent secondary SCHOLARLY sources when asked to do so to support your contention that other significant views exist. ] (]) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't ''currently'' editing it appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a ] attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. ] (]) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. ] (]) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			I have blocked both editors indefinitely. ] <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== 2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks ==
	:Well, I have been editing Misplaced Pages since 2005, and I do not see that as the reality that popular beliefs are of no encyclopedic significance to us. (Especially on the articles that are ABOUT those popular beliefs) Over the years I have heard this shrill voice coming from only a very few users such as yourself. ] /]/ 00:01, 24 June 2013 (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)
	::Why do you assume Dominus Vobisdu that the "popular belief" citation wouldn't be from a reliable source? ] (]) 00:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			:I blocked. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Incivility and edit-warring ==
	::Strawman. That's not what I wrote. Nice try, but no cigar. ] (]) 00:15, 24 June 2013 (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)}}
			This is concerning user ] (] and ]). A new user, who initially made several good faith mistakes related to providing sources and not using original research. However, he also decided that the Afghanistan population at ] needed to be correct. A history of the edit war, which involved Thelittlefaerie vs three other editors (including me):
			Users involved:
	:::Just a couple of comments. Til says he doesn't consider himself a fundamentalist, but that is not the same thing as saying that he is not a Creationist or biblical literalist. To the best of my knowledge he is some form of Creationist and denies evolution, but he's welcome to correct me on that. He seems to be saying he supports NPOV, but then he is happy to add "self-declared authorities" to a lead which is hardly complying with NPOV. I could raise other issues but at the moment it seems moot as this may be closed soon. I will note that if this is just dropped, we'll see more complaints either here or at AN about him within a few months and that some action, be it an RfC/U or a move for a topic ban, should be taken sooner rather than later. 11:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}}
	::::This is typical of the attempts to demonize me, a constructive editor, as someone who allegedly believes the world was created and therefore ought to be banned, when I have repeatedly made clear my view that such opinions are best kept private because this is not the place for anyone to proselytize, and I have never been a proselyte. This is precisely the sort of witch hunt that should have no place on wikipedia. ] /]/ 11:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Wizmut}}
	::::Regarding that diff on ], as I noted in the edit summary, that was a protest edit to register my protest, obviously not one that I expected to stick. This is the one book of the Old Testament that scholars have found the most agreement on as having some historical value. But sure enough, somebody has found a "reference" to an author whose opinion is that the entire Book of Kings is worthless for historical purposes, is pure fantasy and fairy tales, and sure enough, that opinion (currently) gets wikipedia's endorsement in the article, without qualification, as the only "permissible" analysis of the Book of Kings, according to that sentence I edited. Perfect example of the BIAS problems on[REDACTED] I am talking about. Note, I am not telling anyone what to believe about the Book of Kings. The article however IS telling people what to believe about the Book of Kings. ] /]/ 12:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|MIHAIL}}
	{{ec}}::::The edit I mention above was certainly not constructive - some of your edits are very constructive, others the opposite. I was responded to your response about not considering yourself a fundamentalist - I wouldn't have commented on your beliefs if you hadn't said that. You don't proselytize but you push your pov in a way many find unacceptable. I just looked at the archived thread at Jimbo's page. You wrote ". When I first came to[REDACTED] in 2005, the article on Moses stated something like "It has been determined that Moses never existed because of the fact that no other ancient historian ever mentioned him except for the Bible. There is absolutely nothing that has ever been mentioned about Moses by any other source." That's selective quoting. The section "Moses in history" said "The school of skeptics called ], whose views are commonplace among academics, suggest Moses never actually existed as a historical figure, and the events of ], uncorroborated, are the products of pure myth. There is no extra-biblical evidence that Moses existed as a historical person." As in many areas, context is extremely important, and you left out the all-important context as well as misquoting what the article said - it did not say 'determined', it did not say 'absolutely nothing...has ever been mentioned by any other source. It took me seconds to go to your other accounts earliest edits and look for your edit to Moses. ] (]) 12:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm not as nimble as you are with things like getting a diff from 2005 in a few seconds (I do know how to do it, but with my old computer it would take me much longer). I quoted the 2005 article based on my memory from 8 years ago, but it was not intended as a literal quote. The essential thing I remembered is that the 2005 article stated "There is no extra-biblical evidence that Moses existed as a historical person" but it did not at that time state that once writing histories of the world came into vogue among Greeks and Romans in the last few centuries BC, none of them failed to mention the Jews and what they speculated about their origins, and they all give independent, extra-biblical accounts about Moses' career. So the 2005 article was false to state that there is no extra-biblical evidence of Moses' life. Some of the other versions and diffs back then if I recall correctly went much further in stating falsely that Moses was never mentioned by any classical historians and is known only from the Bible. ] /]/ 12:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Ah, found it... The 2005 article for Moses also contained this statement: "The only known historical record that survives mentioning Moses is the Bible." Plainly false statement. ] /]/ 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Plainly, it's correct, since all other historical sources derive their information from the Bible. This is just the kind of tendentious reasoning, along with the unrelenting attritional argumentativeness and constant portayal of youself as a victim of others that destroys reasoned debate and drives away producticve editors from areas in which you have an interest. I think this very thread is evidence of the problem. ] (]) 13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Plainly, you aren't too familiar with the issue. All of the accounts by Greeks and Romans of Moses doing things like, say, invading Ethiopia, are not considered by scholars to be dependent on the Bible. And our article ] currently makes no such fantastic claim as you are making. ] /]/ 13:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Plainly, you aren't too familiar with the issue. Writings by Greeks and Romans are not "records" of Moses. They are generally considered by historians to be expansions or adaptations of the Biblical figure of Moses in the context of Greco-Roman encounters with Judaism - written a thousand years after Moses is said to have existed. They are what are known as counter-myths, reappropriating Moses to an alternative narrative. There are no historical "records" of Moses. That's not to say he didn't exist. Records of almost anyone from so far back in the past are hard to find. ] (]) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Magnolia677}}
	::::::Well that's not what the scholars say about the Greek and Roman historians on most issues. Regardless of the fact that we are now suddenly seeing a "No true scotsman" definition of the word "record", still "The only known historical record that survives mentioning Moses is the Bible" is a plainly misleading and false statement that appeared in the 2005 article, if you still feel that way you could try adding it to the 2013 version but it might look a bit silly with all the sections elaborating on Polyhistor, Strabo, Tacitus and all the other accounts that diverge from the Bible account so significantly that no scholar in their right mind has ever once attempted to pretend that these stories were derived from the Bible, as you just stated they were. ] /]/ 13:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::You seem to be fond of trotting out this "no true scotchman" canard. The film "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" is not a "record" of Robin Hood, is it? But it's a lot closer in time to the historical Robin Hood, if he existed, than the "records" of Moses you are referring to. They are ''not records'' by the normal everyday definition of that word. You didn't even understand what I said. I never said the variant stories came from the Bible. I said thay are "counter-myths, reappropriating Moses to an alternative narrative." This is the problem Til, it is almost impossible to have a rational debate with you. You always make almost-instant comebacks, but show no attempt to really understand what your interlocutors are saying, and you misrepresent scholarship (in this case to suggest that Tacitus is somehow how independent evidence for the ''historical existence'' of Moses, when next-to no serious historian would say that). It is this systematic distortion and endlessly aggressive argumentativeness that create problems. No-ne can engage in a productive debate with you to improve content. It's always an all-or-nothing power struggle to "win". This thread, wandering off on tangents all over the place, epitomises the problem. No discussion can be kept on track. No reasoning is possible. ] (]) 14:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: "No true Scotsman" is not a canard, it really is a logical fallacy, believe it or not. You seem to be awfully fond of trotting out just about every fallacy in the book, including argument by analogy, and I just call 'em like I see 'em. ] /]/ 14:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Like all logical fallacies, it's only a fallacy when the ''fallacious'' logic is adopted. It's not a magic phrase you can use to dismiss all arguments you dislike that appear vaguely similar in your mind. Argument by analogy is not a fallacy, it's a type of induction. ] (]) 15:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::"No true Scotsman" is ''always'' a fallacy. It takes the form, for example: A) There are no historical records mentioning Moses except for only the Bible. B) What about the Greek and Roman historians who mentioned Moses? A) Ah, but they cannot count as "records" of anything, because of the exclusive definition of "record" I designed to exclude them, but simultaneously include the Bible.
	:::::::::The assertion that the completely different Greek and Roman accounts were borrowed from the Bible is not a fallacy, just a plain false statement that isn;t backed up by anyone who has read these accounts.
	:::::::::"Argument by analogy" is ''usually'' a fallacy, but your right, it is possible to have an exception. The fallacy, which is the classic fallacy we see every day on wikipedia, takes the form "We took course of action abc in the case of something else that is remotely analogous, in a vague sort of sense. It is too hard to explain why it would be a logical proposition to take what we consider an analogous course of action in ''this'' case, so instead, we figured it would be easier to just point at that other, vaguely similar case as a precedent, ignoring all the differences that make the cases quite different, and insist that we take a vaguely similar course of action in this case too." ] /]/ 16:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::A little learning is a dangerous thing. You haven't a ''clue'' what you are talking about. "No true scotsman" (NTS), like all fallacies, is only a fallacy when the ''specific form'' of argument described by the phrase is used. You have to demionstrate that that form, exactly, has been used. A Scotsman is defined by something quite distinct from, say, liking football, so to say no ''true'' scotsman dislikes football is simply a fallacy. A "record", in contrast, is a term that can be used in several ways, but in this specific instance is intended to mean historical evidence for the existence of someone. Whether or not something is a "record" depends on how one defines the limits of such evidence. It's a complex and debatable matter, but is not remotely a case of NTS. You can't just say "it's always a fallacy" and then say every example you think is a case of NTS is therefore a fallacy. That, indeed, is a fallacy. It's simply false logic.<br> As I have already said, I did ''not'' say that Greek and Roman accounts were borrowed from the Bible. I said the figure of Moses was borrowed from the Bible and then was woven into other narratives (much the same thing that's happened with Robin Hood). This is largely uncontroversial. I challenge you to find a single serious historian who believes that some form of record of Moses' life wholly independent of the Bible actually existed. I've already clarified this point. The fact that you continue to misrepresent what I said again indicates the problem of any rational communication with you.<br>Your comment on argument from analogy just shows how much you misunderstand what a logical fallacy is. It's a common error. There are certain argments, like those from analogy, or from authority, that ''can'' be used fallaciously if they are misunderstood as deductive rather than inductive arguments. An argument from authority is fallacious if I say "Professor X is an expert on this, so what he says ''must'' be right". That's because I am treating an induction as a deduction. People who fallaciously trot out supposed "fallacies" in the way you do confuse this alogether. Argument from analogy/authority etc is fallacious ''if presented as a deduction''. Leaving out the second part leads to ther utterly spurious assertion that such arguments are fallacious ''as such''. This is all related to the broader ]. ] (]) 17:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			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.
	Clearly we are not going to get an answer to my "Should we close this and refer it to WP:AE?" question, so I am going to be bold: Would an uninvolved admin please close this and refer it to ]? Thanks! --] (]) 06:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.
	:Would any admin please remind this user to stop ]ing me, ]ing my contribs day after day, point out that these rules are meaningless if they do not apply to him as well as everyone else, and ask him please to try to focus on making contributions rather than dogging other users persistently, and trying to get innocent users muzzled and topic banned because their perceived theological opinions don't meet his litmus test? ] /]/ 10:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::So all the editors with contrary views above are deluded? My guess is that religious articles may have been given a fairly wide degree of freedom in the years following 2005, but applying the standards that may have been accepted in some articles years ago to other articles now has led to the current fuss because Misplaced Pages is in fact based on reliable sources from acknowledged experts in the field. ] (]) 23:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Yes, that is pretty much spot-on correct. ] (as pointed out) is a much more informative article now than in 2005 when it was obviously biased and one-sided. I'd say there are still a few articles in this area that are one-sided, though. ] /]/ 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			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 ].
	== Unfair and biased topic ban imposed ==
			26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)
	{{archive top|result=] metted some good venting it seems. It's going nowhere as of now, and some advice has been left on the OP's talk page. NAC - If I'm overstepping, please revert. <font face="Segoe script">]]</font> 23:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	Bear with me.
	#'''Context:''' There is a pair of ''very controversial'' articles, namely
	#:{{la|2002 Gujarat violence}}
	#:{{la|Godhra train burning}}
	#:User {{UT|Darkness Shines}} is <s>pushing an obnoxious agenda</s> <span style="color:green">supporting a version which I think is a blatant violation of[REDACTED] policies</span> in ''each'' one of them. He created ] as well as category of the same name and vehemently defended both of them in the ], ] as well as ], blamed ], even when multiple editors tried to make him understand the issue. Darkness was blocked and then unblocked and that unblock was ]. Let's not forget I told that this editor will not only lead to his own block but also others'. Now, it's no secret that because of some recent changes in his ''proclivities'' he has managed to garner a few hardcore '']'' who <s>would want</s> <span style="color:green">has supported him in his struggle</span> to see an ''exclusive'' and utterly ''one-sided'' focus on only anti-''Muslim'' violence in India, who incessantly ''strive'' to blindly label every anti-Muslim violence in India as "pogrom". For more on Darkness Shines see this ].
	#I expanded one article few weeks ago, added literally hundreds of sources, 116 to be exact, but later it was reduced down to 3 sources with an allegation that I have turned it into a political screed by none other than {{UT|Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise|FPaS}}. And with warning that seemed to me more like a ''threat'' that if I try to restore any of it again I will be ''banned'' no questions asked, and I '''didn't''' because I was scared I didn't ''want to be banned''. I obviously ''felt bullied''. I didn't like it even one bit. Save me all the repetition see ''']'''. I have ], I thought I was working inside my boundaries. Maybe that I could have handled it more ''finesse'' but he didn't even bother to explain ''anywhere'' what the issues were. Still I refrained from reinstating sourced content into that ] because I ''respect'' the warning. I don't believe that I have ] yet. But '''when you're met with absolute ''silence'' you cannot but here nothing.'''
	#What happened in the past 24 hours has ''really'' managed to put big doubts in my mind about the whole establishment. Now in a separate article ] other ''sourced content'' which I think is pertinent enough and '''''none of the involved editors''''' protested against it (even the extra-scrupulous Darkness Shines let it stay). Again, maybe I am wrong in some subtle way but that is not a ground to assume bad faith on my part? I did not misrepresent the source, I encourage you to check it. I don't believe Misplaced Pages is censored but that belief is steadily languishing. Instead of talking with me or discussing with me, FPaS deemed it ''okay'' to <span style="color:green">interpretation of my actions</span> for SIX months from any India-Pakistan related article. I have been editing that article for weeks, what happened this time that triggered the ban you may ask, I can only point to this . Note What ] wrote:
	#:<blockquote>″I'm seeing 4 separate edits and this isn't report worthy. I have more than had of you two guys knocking spots off each other. I'm going to leave you separate messages on your talk pages.″</blockquote>
	#:And he ''did'' it properly. I have no complaints against him.
	#BTW it is ''only me'' who is banned, not {{UT|Darkness Shines}} whom FPaS himself recently warned by saying, ,
	#:<blockquote>″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″</blockquote>
	I have in past in this very venue see things that have boggled my mind and ''yet'' I am astounded. I was in the middle of a discussion with {{U|Dlv999}}, ], ] and {{U|Dharmadhyaksha}}. I don't think I have acted in ''bad faith'', or misrepresented any source deliberately, or behaved uncivilly or any other way tried to disrupt[REDACTED] in last 7 days. What is the problem that I'm creating? Tell me and give me a chance! ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 07:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	----
	<small>Note: I have changed some content above because of a request by Salvio . I know it's ''bad practice'' to change a post after it has been met with responses but it's a double edged sword for since Salvio said below he might block me, and he ], if I didn't change it. I don't know if it is up to the par even now, but ''please'' understand that much of what I have written here have less to do with ''faith'', more with ''empirical'' evidence, objective observation and common sense. Some of these, I think, are indispensable to the validity of my ''appeal''. Most of us might not understand the subtleties of the situation, albeit some can. {{U|Mrt3366}} 07:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)</small>
	----
	* I'm not going to pretend I understand the subtleties on this affair, but based on the banning admin was ] in editing the topic area and was in a direct content disagreement with the banned editor. So someone else should impose the ban if it is necessary. ] (]) 08:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::<small>If you look at it carefully and in detail it is actually dead-simple. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 08:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC) </small>
	*Why was the appeal made here and not at ] using the standard appeal template? The topic ban was issued according to ] for ]. ] (]) 09:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	**Discretionary sanctions may also be appealed on ANI and, better yet, on AN (as a personal note, I prefer these venues to AE, but there are fellow Arbs who feel differently). That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::After that, I will be ''blocked''? WOOW! The things you call personal attacks are observations that are ''indispensable'' to my appeal. Most don't get how critical the situation is. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Not that I particularly like this, but I have just blocked MrT for a week. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::: *blink* You did whuh? (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 10:59, 22 June 2013 (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."''
	This is a clear assumption of bad faith by the admin who awarded a topic ban to MrT, he is very much involved with MrT in some other articles and was not happy with MrT so he banned him, and for what? Some edit made by MrT was given as the reason, so how many people felt that his edit was problematic? No one except that admin. I feel that we should not only remove the topic ban of MrT for this good faith edit but also there should be some action against this admin for misusing his admin rights. -] (]) 18:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I agree, it seems to be some sort of background between Mrt and FPaS (I have no idea when/how it started) and probably FPaS should had avoided any administrative action towards MrT and let an uninvolved admin doing eventual actions against him. In any case these two edits are problematic but likely not even worthy of a talk page warning (even if I don't consider reverting both of them as a wrong action). And even if FPaS was correct in imposing a ban, a six month ban is absolutely beyond measure. However, waiting to hear FPaS'explanations... ] 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::In a normal situation what you say may be correct (obviously the details would need to be examined to determine whether "let an uninvolved admin..." is a reasonable summary). However, in a topic under discretionary sanctions (]), the situation is very different. Several major battles in real life are echoed in Misplaced Pages with editors on one side fighting editors on the other side over a wide range of articles for years. Little details such as the name of a town may seem incidental to the casual onlooker, but can have epic implications to those involved who recognize that one sequence of letters means their side is right, and another sequence of letters means the other side is showing their POV bias. In such circumstances, it is impossible for order to be maintained unless one or two volunteer admins adopt the dirty task of following the skirmishes, and every enthusiastic editor quickly becomes acquainted with the one or two admins who monitor the topic. If INVOLVED were hyper-applied, chaos would develop because it is not possible for completely uninvolved people (with no knowledge of the background and history) to follow all the details—that's why the problem went to Arbcom in the first place. Misplaced Pages is not an exercise in justice. An appeal should address the precise points mentioned in the topic ban, and should assume the admin is working in good faith—the purpose of an appeal is to show that the admin was incorrect in the particular case. ] (]) 00:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: The admin FPaS who unilaterally decided this ban is unfortunately ] in making content decisions in the topic area. I was uninvolved in editing this area before this thread started, but it was easy for me to notice his !voter AfD participation in and his decision to twice-stub the other article sans discussion. (Mr. T's version of the article had a horribly unfocused prose flow, so I found it easier to expand/write from scratch rather than try to massage Mr. T's text toward more NPOV, but that's obviously a content decision.) This is unfortunately another ], with an admin being closely enough involved in content-making decisions taking actions which are normally reserved for uninvolved ones. ] the difficulty in getting uninvolved admins to look at cases of long-term problematic conduct, but this is unfortunately how Misplaced Pages's policies and admin community are currently structured. ] (]) 01:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: ''"why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism"''. In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates.
	*I too had edited the article on ] and I think I too should present my perspective. I am concerned that Misplaced Pages is doing a piss poor job of noting human rights violation in Pakistan and I have been trying to correct the situation as much as I can. FuturePerfectatSunrise seems to be super-sensitive to negative content about Pakistan and had edited that article whitewashing almost all of the <u>(well sourced)</u> negative content about Pakistan. I had created a section on "Women" and FuturePerfectatSunrise has deleted that too (without any explanation). They had threatened to block (without warning) anyone who edits the article in an "obviously non-neutral" way but would not explain what that "obviously non-neutral" thing might be. (Mrt3366 has requested them to explain things several times.) So, the result is that if I edit the article at all, I am at immediate risk of being blocked for editing in that mysterious but "obviously non-neutral" way. I am afraid I cannot deal with an ed who is whitewashing an article and is likely to block me (by doubling up as an admin on the same article). So, I had given up editing that article. If FuturePerfectatSunrise had explained their concerns, I would have liked to work with them, and address those concerns. But FuturePerfectatSunrise remains completely uncommunicative and just keeps waving the admin-gun and shooting. Looking at the way Mrt3366 has been victimized, my impulse to edit that article has eroded even further. As a non-admin, I cannot be expected to deal with an ed who wants to whitewash negative content and can block/ban me. It is up to the community to see if it is OK for admins to block/ban eds that they have content disputes with. Thanks and regards.] (]) 03:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	** Women, in general, are not usually considered to be a minority. So that section is probably off-topic ''in that article'', unless only women of some religious/ethnic minorities face extra discrimination, and in that case the issue is better phrased in those terms and diffused in some other section. ] and ] is an appropriate home for the general issue of women's human rights in Pakistan. Better communication/explanation from the editor deleting that would have saved you some aggravation, no doubt. On the other hand, some level of ] is required in writing about such topics. I've seen other editors who I suspect are motivated by deep personal biases throw in everything and the kitchen sink in some article, probably attempting to make some entity look as bad as possible. That's not how an encyclopedia is supposed to be structured. And it usually ends up badly for editors who repeatedly don't get that point; see ] for an example. ] (]) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*I have two thoughts for those concerned about this case. First, it would be great if there were enough admins prepared to monitor topics under discretionary sanctions so that each admin could spend an hour justifying each statement, but such resources are not available. Second, any editor wanting to show unfair treatment should start with a diff of an edit where their change was to the advantage of one side, and another difff showing an edit on the opposite side. Neutral editors in a contentious area should find it easy to locate material that expresses each side. ] (]) 04:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I obviously agree, let's focus on my ''topic ban'' for now please? ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*I ''thought'' I was working inside my boundaries. Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. If you go through my edits carefully you will see as a whole I have never ''blindly'' opposed something. Again, perhaps I could have handled the situation in Minorities of Pakistan with a bit more tact but I wasn't even told ''anywhere'' what the issues were. Still I considered the possibility of me being biased with regards to that article and '''refrained''' from reinstating sourced content into that article. Does it not mean ''anything''? Does it not mean that I am ''willing'' and I don't out-of-hand disregard such warnings based on a perception of my biases? I am not saying I am 100% neutral editor, I mean who can self-certify like that? It may ''very well'' be that I ''am'' biased ''right now''. If that is the case then tell me what did I do to get accused of bias? Bear in mind that without a fair hearing, accusations of bias is tantamount to ''personal attack''. ''Silence is not admission of guilt''. Did I distort a source? Did I obdurately refuse to listen to others? Did I delete sourced content? I am the one who constantly gets vilified for adding <u>sourced</u> content, ''yet'' I ''usually'' don't outright retaliate by ''attacking'' others; I simply ask them to focus on content. If I get cautioned by an editor/admin that I am attacking someone (even ''unknowingly''), I pay heed to that and ''rewrite'' my comment almost ''immediately''. I mean does it not freaking say ''anything'' about my character? I have been asked to keep it focused on ''my topic ban'' but amidst all the disparity it's gradually becoming ''very hard'' not to point to other cases where greater NPOV violations have been dealt with much much more leniently. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:{{ec}} is the edit which according to the admin "the straw that broke the camel's back" for him. If you check that article, that content is still present in the article, it was not opposed by anyone, there was no discussion on talk opposing the inclusion of this in the article.I would consider this a good faith edit, did anyone try to explain MrT that there was some issue with that edit?No. Now the admin thought that it was some kind of tendentious edit, so he conveyed that with a topic ban. My conclusion is if an admin do not like my edits which were not opposed by anyone else then I run the risk of being banned. This is a very dangerous situation.-] (]) 06:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			16 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie again, this time including in his edit summary ''"And now you are acting like a complete fool. I am DONE WITH THIS. You are just a terrible person."'' and also ''"Either stop or I'll keep making edits."'' This edit was particularly troublesome, not only for the incivility, but because he reverted over a dozen unrelated edits. This was reverted by ].
	::Okay, that much-touted "tendentious edit" is ''still <u>inside</u> '' nobody removed it since then, it can mean only two things:
	::#My edit is not seen as inappropriate till now, by any involved editor (who I must say have been very, ''very'' scrupulous about almost every ''other'' thing)
	::#The banning admin's aim was ''not'' improvement of the article, had his goal been the improvement of the article he would probably have ''talked'' with me about it, at least ''reverted'' that edit. What was his ''aim then''?
	::That means I am unilaterally <u>banned</u> for six months by an admin, who few weeks ago was involved in a direct content dispute with me on ], for making an edit, in an article about a highly emotive subject, which ''nobody'' else <small>(including those who were ''vehemently'' opposing me)</small> deemed worthy of even a ''complaint''? I am flabbergasted. Yet, I am expected to ''assume good and believe that everything is alright''. And amazingly enough I am ''still'' assuming that people ''will'' see the inconsistency. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 07:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::'''Uninvolved editor''': Given how this has unfolded so far, I think it would be appropriate to get an uninvolved admin to look over this specific situation, and either advise MrT on what he did wrong (he cant fix his behaviour if he doesnt know what the issue is, the point of any non-permanent ban is to allow time for reflection, and behavioural adjustment); and to check the banning admins' rationale and then extend/reconfirm/minimise/remove ban as necessary (if required). If MrT has behaved incorrectly at some point, without being made aware of what exactly is the issue, it is extremely unlikely he will be able to modify his behaviour, and hopefully return to the topic as a changed man. -- ] (]) 07:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*This is horrible! COMMONSENSE (or lets say ARBCOM, for people who follow book) would say that a non-involved admin should take up brooming tasks. We have like thousand admins and why do these same faces come up for imposing blocks and bans??? They are very involved as editors in these topics and they themselves, with a bit of dignity, should be avoiding using admin tools. Mr. T should not be banned as this admin is involved. <br> In fact, various other admins should also rest their broomsticks when they are editing South Asian articles and at the same time acting as admins. §§]§§ {]/]} 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*] says: ''"Administrators must also follow the Committee procedures set down at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions."''
	:And ]
	:<blockquote>''"4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, <u>identify</u> misconduct and <u>advise how</u> the editor may mend their ways;"''</blockquote>
	:When ''Future perfect at Sunrise'' warned me ], "You get the same kind of warning from me as DarknessShines did: this </nowiki>] edit is completely unacceptable. '''You guys all need banned, the whole lot of you, on all sides of this sorry mess of a POV cesspit.'''" (my emphasis)
	:I didn't like the dismissive and angry tone of his comment yet kept my cool.
	:I later asked him specifically,
	:<blockquote>''"I am trying my best to cope with your comments. I just can't fathom the reasoning is all. Please elaborate a little further. So far what you claimed makes me wonder many things. I ask again, What do you want to ban me from and based on what?"''</blockquote>
	:His reply was, and I think this is the warning,
	:<blockquote>''″Sorry, no. I think I have been quite explicit in explaining what is wrong with your editing. We expect a basic level of competence from our editors, so I'd expect you to understand what I said. Oh, and just so you can't say you weren't warned properly, the relevant Arbcom decision is at ].″'' -Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)</blockquote>
	:I don't think he ever explained to me what exactly he saw that deserved a ban. He kept on harping on my intellectual incompetency but never bothered to ''explain'' anything. Read the thread. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 08:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{ec}} Mrt3366 was requested by Salvio giuliano to remove the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in his initial report. He was very briefly blocked when Salvio misread a response of his. Since his unblock, he has not modified his initial posting. Several editors active in the topic area covered by ] have commented here. A block issued under discretionary sanctions is hard to overturn and almost certainly that cannot happen based solely on the views of a small self-selected group of editors. The advantage of ] is that discussions are more orderly and must stick to the point; there is also guaranteed input from uninvolved administrators, usually familiar with both the topic area and discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 08:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	**The reason comments are so orderly at AE is because few watch it partially because input from outsiders to the AE in group are generally ignored. MR T is clearly getting agitated which isn't helping their cause but a very quick 15 minute review shows that the user is telling the truth about one thing, that there does seem to be some evidence that some admins where out of line. For example, I personally get irritated when I see notices like the one that all '''non-admin's''' are blocked. A seemingly automatic assumption that if your an admin, you must be right or that since their an admin they'll just unblock themselves, neither of which is a good response. I also agree that discretionary sanctions are hard to unblock but a consensus here should be enough to over rule it on a case by case basis. With that said, the articles in question have massive NPOV issues throughout them, they should both probably be fully protected to ensure discussions occur on the talk page and are only implemented after a consensus is reached. ] (]) 13:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			17 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie says he ''"could not reach out to you Magnolia677"'' (I can see no such attempt) and reverts again. This again reverts over a dozen unrelated changes, so I do the revert this time, and also try to warn Thelittlefaerie on the talk page and on his user page.
	=== The edit that broke the camel's back ===
	I see two problems with that edit :
	* Ashok Patel is also identfied as a ] member in the source, but this was left out in the edit. But, more importantly,
	* How does that ] of some phrases allegedely uttered qualify as "Post-Godhra violence"??? And how is Patel's opinion about who started the original event ''relevant'' in the section about post-event violence?
	In light of the previous problems of a similar nature in the article on Minorities in Pakistan, I think this edit ''was a case of breaking the camel's'' back as far as ] is concerned. Whether willingly or not Mr. T is adding enough irrelevant, ] material to require some sort of remedy to relieve others from repeated/massive clean-up after him.
	That's my take on this. ] (]) 09:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: ''"I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."''
	And I also note the rather unsurprising edit-warring over that addition from another editor apparently deeply vested in this . ] (]) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Don't bring up ] I ''didn't'' repeat my edits and left it to others. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 10:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:First, this is the '''first time''' somebody has come to talk to me about it. Bear this in mind while trying to justify the SIX months ban.
	:Second, it was added as an ''opinion'', ''not'' an assertion of fact. That article is ''fraught'' with such assertions. I was not the first one to add opinions. (WP:GNG doesn't limit the content of an article.)
	:Third, I attributed all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. (cf. ]) I added a source which I found on the net . Since that was the only thing missing from the article, I was actually trying to ''balance'' it (cf. ]). Needless to say, it may seem offensive to some. And this is the problem.
	:Fourth, do not ] ''please'', I didn't ''willingly'' leave ]-member part out. In fact, I think, it makes his claims ''more'' significant not ''less''. We should '''NOT''' <!-- to -->sit on judgement on whether an witness, who is BTW ''DEPOSING'' before an investigative commission, is telling the truth or not. That's not our job. <br>Also have you seen the article ]? ]? Was the creator of that article also banned? I made an edit, one wrong edit maybe for which I was not approached by anybody, yet basing on that edit I was directly banned. Another guy initiates ] a page from a neutral common name to an utterly biased name, initiates RFC to justify ''illegal reports from unconstitutional commission'' (see ]) as though it matches the credibility of '''the official verdict from a court of law''', creates an utterly ''deceptive and derogatory article'' based on ''selective sources, biased comments'', nobody asks any questions about it. He is blocked and then unblocked and then blocked within days and then unblocked by an involved admin. Nobody cares to reblock him. That is bias. Yet, I make one edit, one edit, just ''one single'' edit that is not a contravention of any policy that I know of, I am right away banned for six months by an admin who clearly angry at me and was involved in content dispute with me. WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 10:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: You're posting in bold, allcaps, and have a template in your signature? What on Earth is wrong with ''you'' people? Any goodwill you have built is pretty much being torn down very quickly by the above - well done. You're effectively ensuring your topic ban continues, and putting huge walls up against any future complaints. Well done (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::And your signature has some symbols that i dont like. §§]§§ {]/]} 14:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Dharmadhyaksha I think BWilkins is trying to help. ] (]) 15:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, but his attempts to help are not ''actually'' helping. That observation about my signature was uncalled-for here. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::You still haven't changed upper-case to lower case, and as I said this place isn't for those who are sensitive to criticism especially when when they are the subject of a discussion. I know it is difficult, but that is the only thing that will work. ] (]) 16:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, yeah, goodwill and all. Yeah. This is your first comment and that too when I am starting to loose my calm. What is the use of such goodwill, if it can't make you comment on the right time at the right moment on the right thing. HUuuuuH? ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Mrt3366, you will recall that I have on several recent occasions predicted that topic bans would soon be enforced for various people contributing to articles such as these, ] etc. You, DS, Dharmadhyaksha, OrangesRyellow and others are all going at it hammer-and-tongs, you are all displaying huge amounts of POV and the number of times that you were appearing on this board were bound to draw attention. The only thing that surprises me here is that the ban is not indefinite and that it has not been imposed (yet) on others. Go contribute to some subject matter where you would appear to have less of a vested interest and/or less of a battleground mentality. There must be at least 4 million other articles you could work on. - ] (]) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: Don't forget to count yourself as one of us, Sitush. , , , ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Mrt3366 railing and ranting is not going to get you unbanned, I suggest you strike off or rephrase what has been considered as "personal attacks", unbold the bold etc. I've been the subject of a ban discussion motion against me that was carried and trust me drama doesn't help. Keep your cool. ] (]) 13:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::What personal attack are you or anybody else referring to? ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 14:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Savio wrote: "That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked." You ought to ask him. ] (]) 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::So you mean you yourself don't know what the issues are? BTW, I ''implored'' Salvio to explain ABF issues on my unblock request, , he didn't say anything as of now. I am not creating this "drama" intentionally you know. I have been forced to make strident and explicit observations. That's all they are, observations from my stand-point. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::No Mr. T, I don't know what is bugging Savio, I didn't say you were creating drama, I just said that drama doesn't help, my experience. ] (]) 16:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*This topic ban could have been seen coming from a hundred miles away. Mrt666 clearly chose not to get out of its way.] 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban for Mr. T. His responses above indicate that he isn't likely to change his approach. I would support topic bans for a couple of other editors in this area, but that should be proposed separately, I suppose. ] (]) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	====Request for comment on the edit that "broke camel's back"====
	So far only one edit has been raised as justification of my ban. I have not seen any other edit (except "Minorities of Pakistan" which I already left because of personal fear).
			I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.
	#That edit was sourced.
	#I didn't ''misrepresent'' the claim/quotes, it clearly says "Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness" and also mentions the remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party member and municipal corporator, Ashok patel, a witness <u>DEPOSING</u> before the investigative commission inquiring about the riots of 2002. We should not sit on judgement on whether an witness is telling the truth or not. That's not our job. If the reliable sources mentioned it ought to be included.
	#Only one issue about that good-faith edit might be that I, perhaps, ''miscalculated'' the weight of that statement. There was no discussion after that, I was directly banned!
			] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	May I know what the issue was? ]] 13:01, 24 June 2013 (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)
	===ArbCom===
			::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)
	While I think Mr. T's edits are biased, Future Perfect seems to be acting in an extremely heavy-handed manner when plainly WP:INVOLVED. This is not the first time it has happened with regards to the India-Af-Pak topic area either: ]. It is also not the only topic area where he has had this issue. Given that Future was previously subject to ] in the ] case, I think one recourse to consider is simply taking this all up to Arbitration for a general review of Future's administrative actions.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:57, 23 June 2013 (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 ==
	: The claim that I have an "involvement" here is plain wrong. I have followed the current set of disputes involving DarknessShines and others from a neutral distance, and my engagement in it has been in an administrative role. I warned Mrt the other day, as an uninvolved administrator, and now I followed up on this warning. That was, as best I can remember, my first ever interaction with Mrt. I have given such warnings to several users, on all sides of these issues. In a small number of situations, I have also addressed and corrected issues of obviously bad use of sources and obvious tendentious content editing, including a handful of content edits on some of the disputed articles. These were "tie-breaker" edits, made in situations where I felt the opponents were so much entrenched in their POV squabbles, and their understanding of NPOV writing was so poor – on both sides – that it would be unreasonable to wait for them to work out a reasonable solution among themselves. These interventions fell on both sides of the dispute, but most of them were, if anything, in favour of Mrt's side. The claim that I somehow have an ongoing dispute with Mrt is ridiculous. (I do consider myself "involved" with his main opponent though, as I had the bad luck that Darkness Shines at some point chose to meddle in a content dispute I had with another, unrelated editor some time ago. This is the only reason I have not also sanctioned Darkness Shines – who I otherwise consider at least equally to blame for this whole situation.)
			{{atop|result={{NAC}} {{u|Swagsgod}} blocked and TPA revoked. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	: As for the objective justification for the sanction imposed, as I clearly said here , the individual edit I pointed out was merely the "straw that broke the camel's back". Other admins had been making it equally clear to Mrt that his behaviour was unacceptable and that possible sanctions against him were being considered. The particular edit in question then made it obvious that Mrt was either unwilling or unable to subdue his urge to misuse these articles for political advocacy regardless of sourcing and academic consensus. This is sanctionable, and Mrt's repeated claims that he doesn't understand what he did wrong doesn't really make things any better. ] ] 20:11, 23 June 2013 (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)
	:::The proposal for an arbcom case centred on Future Perfect at Sunrise is not new. A similar proposal was made in late December 2012. That proposal was fairly speedily rejected by the arbitration committee. Given the comments from informed parties like Bwilkins, Sitush and Maunus, a similar case would almost certainly be rejected now. {{admin|RegentsPark}} has not commented so far. He is an administrator who has an in-depth understanding of the POV-pushing going on around ]. His comments would be valuable in interpreting the cumulative edits On ]. (In his only actions on the page, FPaS protected the page on 7 June, returning it to a previous state prior to the large number of changes mainly by Mrt.) As I wrote before, it would have been better if the appeal had been made at ], where it could have proceeded in a more orderly way. ] (]) 23:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Looking into it. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I do not see why people like RegentsPark, Sitush and Maunus should get greater weight in an arbcom case. Except for Bwilkins, you can see all the people you name on one side of the fence at ] and its archives. Giving paramount importance to comments from people with a particular orientation would be disastrous. It would be like giving paramount importance to people from palestine on Israel-Palestine affairs. If you do that, the effect would be same as when you get Nazis to lord over Jews. You may also want to keep in mind the point that RegentsPark may look like a Westerner to everyone, but may actually be Pakistani POV. If you think {{admin|RegentsPark}} is Western POV, instead of looking at his username, you should look into the type of articles he edits constantly. Does that look like a Western ed to you?] (]) 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			::Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
	:::::You have already been warned about making these kinds of comments at ]. You have also seem to have misread what I wrote. I am not suggesting a fresh arbcom case to handle editing problems connected with ]. That case has already happened. The problem is in enforcing the arbitration committee's decisions. Those problems are created not by administrators trying to do so but with editors pushing entrenched nationalistic POVs either in articles or in project space. There is no indication of any such problem with the edits of Sitush, Bwilkins, Maunus or RegentsPark. ] (]) 05:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			::*{{tq| Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God}}
	::::::I have just blocked OrangesRyellow for that obnoxious attack - I shall post a review request here at ANI in a moment. -- ] (]) 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			::*{{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 ==
	::'''(1)''' ] an activist and scholar has referred to false propaganda that has been the feature of the coverage of the incidents in Gujarat in 2002. '''(2)''' I draw attention to the report presented by ''The Council for International Affairs and Human Rights'' headed by , a former chief justice of the Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana high courts" that Godhra was an "act of international terrorism planned and executed in connivance with jehadi forces based there",, Arvind Lavakare quotes an ] report alleging that 157 riots were started in retaliation to the violence sparked in response to Godhra. '''(3)''' How different are statements in '''(1)''' and '''(2)''' from what Mr. T has written, described by Future Perfect as the proverbial last straw ''"After nearly 10 days of the train carnage, Pakistani flags were unfurled on top of a public tank in Ramol area and Muslims shouted slogans like 'Pakistan zindabad '...'' According to Mr. T's edit riots were sparked off by Muslims who instigated the Hindus ''"with an intention of spreading fear"''. Mr. T's edit is well sourced, and is written in the manner Misplaced Pages wishes views to be reported. '''(4)'''The Tewatia report whose excerpts are available in Arvind Lavakare post and which is available in its primary form and reports as mysterious incidents like: '''(a)''' Very high traffic of telephone calls from Godhra to Pakistan (mainly Karachi) before 27.02. 02. '''(b)''' Holding of istema - religious gatherings - at Godhra that were attended by foreigners in large numbers. '''(5)''' This looks like nothing but a content dispute and not a candidate for being described as ''"The particular edit in question then made it obvious that Mrt was either unwilling or unable to subdue his urge to misuse these articles for political advocacy regardless of sourcing and academic consensus."''; Future Perfect's, argument regarding why he banned Mr. T isn't convincing. '''(6)''' https://toolserver.org isn't working for me at the moment, but as far as I remember I've had no major contribution to the page, so if I'm missing any fine points it is all my fault. ] (]) 22:41, 23 June 2013 (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.
	::: Yogesh Khandke, you are still topic-banned from all edits about Indian history. You shouldn't even be here. ] ] 06:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Is 2002 Indian history? These are contemporary events. ] (]) 09:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I had once asked YK to get the terms of his topic ban clarified and an editor had told him that he can safely edit articles about the stuff that happened less than 25 years ago, I do not think that he has breached anything.So Future Perfect at Sunrise, stop bullying every editor here. -] (]) 09:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::You edit-warred with Mr. T over the Minorities in Pakistan article. Saying it was "obvious tendentious editing" doesn't change the fact that you blanked a huge amount of sourced content, removed many constructive edits, and emptied four different sections all while threatening to block anyone who reverted your action.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	* I recommend asking arbcom to put FPaS and regentspark under ''']'''. Under this scheme, their admin actions in the area would need to be approved by another ArbCom-approved admin. While this area is undoubtedly dogged by editors who engage in non-neutral editing and who either lack ] to take feedback on board or persist by sheer ], the problem is compounded by admins taking action while clearly ] and then denying it with a straight face. I guess all regulars editing this area, admins and plebeians, fall in MastCell's 85% by now. ] (]) 01:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Going to ArbCom is always an option, but it's very doubtful you will get the result you are looking for. FPaS is one of the few administrators willing to be involved in these cultural disputes, and they're not going to do anything to stop him from helping out when no one else is willing to do so. ] 04:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: What you're basically saying is that no ] admin, i.e. who isn't also editing in the area, is willing to reign in the POV warriors, but (according to Boing! below) the uninvolved admins are willing to give barnstars to the involved admins who do the policing. That doesn't bode well; in the long run it will promote admin fiefdoms (over content) and increasingly biased, arbitrary or self-serving enforcement actions. ] (]) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Your statement misconstrues AniMate's use of the word "involved." When he writes "willing to be involved" that means (to me) "willing to take administrative action" not ]. ] (]) 09:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::: I know you consider FPaS not ] in this area (as an editor besides admin), but let's agree to disagree on that. Unlike most others who edit in this "]" area, FPaS has shown little bias per , but that's not the same as being completely un] in content editing, in my opinion, of course. ] (]) 11:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::: Misplaced Pages needs both unbiased (as humanly possible) editors and un] admins in difficult/controversial content areas. However, the two classes of Wikipedians are not equivalent. The latter class is much more easy to determine, and rightfully so, because of the need to avoid even giving the ]; this was emphasized in some ArbCom case, but I won't bother hunting down the WP-namespace link given the generally accepted notion in ethics. ] (]) 11:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Mrt's editing did not leave the article ] in a neutrally written state. In nationalistic disputes—Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, India-Pakistan, etc—many administrators at ] look into the basis of disputes, take into account content added, and make some kind of evaluation. It is not an easy matter, but often that seems to be the only way to resolve matters. Future Perfect at Sunrise is not a regular editor of the article ] (he is more probably more interested in ]), but could nevertheless identify a previous stable version of the article based on its editing history. ] (]) 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*This is a very difficult area to work in. As others have noted, many of the editors who take part are entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers, on both sides - many resort to personal attack at the drop of a hat, and some will even sink as low as making racism accusations against those who try to uphold Misplaced Pages's standards of neutrality and sourcing. In this current dispute, both sides have acted very badly, and some continue to do so in this very discussion. That FPaS is willing to try to administer this poisonous topic area is cause for recognition, gratitude, and praise - not censure. -- ] (]) 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::By blocking out only one side of these so-called "entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers" you're encouraging the other side and that I think is a bias. Okay I won't mind it even a bit, if you protect the page and force people to list arguments on the talk before one ''uninvolved'' admin and let the best suited assertions in the article. I would also not mind it if you banned everyone from both the "sides" as you see it. Nope. {{U|Yogesh Khandke}}, a ''good'' editor, is already ''banned'', you blocked {{U|OrangesRyellow}}, I am banned by Fut.perf. It seems there is only ''one side'' who is actually getting the hit for the accusations which are applicable to ''both'' the sides. With all due respect, THAT is ''bias''. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Plenty of sanctions have been handed out to *both* sides in this long-simmering war. The *only* long-term solution is for both sides to step away from the brink - and if that does not happen, sanctions will become more frequent and more severe, against *both* sides. -- ] (]) 09:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*Future Perfect has consistently been abrasive and domineering in many of these topic areas. He has made several supervotes on content issues, which he casually admits in his own defensive way, and seeks to enforce them with threats of admin action against any who reverse him. In essence your argument is like saying we need corrupt, abusive cops to handle all those horrible gangsters. Except, you generally don't get rid of the gangsters, but just end up with a group of cops little different from the gangsters who then become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. No admin should get a pass for persistently bad behavior on the basis that a certain topic area is "toxic" as most topic areas where admins are needed get pretty toxic. Having admins who are excessive or vindictive makes those areas ''more'' toxic, not less, increasing the battleground mentality and compromising the integrity of the content.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Please could this section be archived? So far one editor has broken a topic ban and another has been blocked. It has become a free-for-all either to complain about "us and them" in ] or to cast aspersions on administrators volunteering at ]. ] (]) 07:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	** Not everyone agrees that ], but since we're ]ing left and right, let me say that this thread was ''good ]''. Since admins generally can't or won't do much about actual content problems (see Bishonen's sub-thread ]), at least we got some of the usual suspects into getting blocked for incivility. ]. ] (]) 15:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*** ...even though the block was already lifted, per promises to behave. ] (]) 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*** But 3 lefts make a right. (sorry - couldn't resist that one.) — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 21:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			== 142.190.62.131 ==
	== Legal and other threats from IP 76.12.126.18 ==
			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)
	{{IP|76.12.126.18}} seems to be making a clear legal threat in . Can someone else review this, please? -- ] (]) 10:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			: 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 ==
	Here's . -- ] (]) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{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)}}
			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 .
			#
	And also contains another implied threat, namely: "there is currently rumor that Anons are considering an Operation to thwart further malicious publications from you." -- ] (]) 12:12, 22 June 2013 (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)
	I have no comment on the rest of your complaint but I fail to see any implied threat of anon retaliation ops in the last diff you provide. '''<font color="gold">★]</font>]]]<font color="gold">★</font>''' 12:38, 22 June 2013 (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}}
	:It's in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the diff, quote: ''"Your avid discomfort in the truth is leading to an investigation into your own bias toward Spamhaus and/or Cloudflare and there is currently rumor that Anons are considering an Operation to thwart further malicious publications from you."'' -- ] (]) 12:47, 22 June 2013 (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)
	::Alright I see it now. Well the threats certainly exist as you say. We should proceed as we usually do with IP-legal threat accounts then. '''<font color="gold">★]</font>]]]<font color="gold">★</font>''' 12:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			::: Thanks very much, ]. And as well? ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	* I'm still not seeing a legal threat. "Leading to an investigation"? Where? On Misplaced Pages? In my livingroom? Not even an attempt to chill the conversation - more trying to huff and puff about something, plus a little ] (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 13:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			::::Thanks {{U|Paul Erik}}, I got that /64 as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I think you conflating issues. The threat mentioned is the suggestion of retaliation by 'Anonymous' in some form, obviously not legal action but most likely some other form of action, itself potentially illegal. The investigation thing wasn't AFAIK of so much concern although we taken together with the earlier suggestions of legal action seem to be problematic. While technically the claim was not in the form 'we will do this' but in the form 'someone else will do this' it would likely have the same chilling effect and since it's referring to retaliation it's a fairly questionable warning if taken seriously. The legal threat is the claims of libel, including the statement "The Homogeneous Party, a registered Political Party in the State of Florida and we will not tolerate deliberate libel to be published on your site and you continue to revise corrections that mitigate the damages of libel" which implies not just that they feel they are being libelled but that they are considering legal action. ] (]) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you! ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Abusive user ==
	Since this is also about me, can I just add that I really can't take these IP's messages seriously and ] ] 13:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*Blocked for a month. ] (]) 17:59, 22 June 2013 (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)
	Well, he jumped IP and sent me "''We are filing for an injunction of your site today''" and "''We will also be launching an Operation against Misplaced Pages for being libel-mongers and will test the capabilities of your staff, system, and personal lives. That, my friend, is a promise!''" and some more stuff. It gets better all the time. {{wink}} ] 21:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Blocked for one month by TParis. ] (]) 19:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Wikihounding and Repeated Harrassment by ] ==
			:@]. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. ] (]|]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{ping|Shaggydan}} - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at , I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. ]&thinsp;] 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Shaggydan}} Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. ] (]) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? ] (]) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with ''actual'' personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism.}} You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? ] (]) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.
			:I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many ]s are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.
			:Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.
			:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.
			:He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.
			:I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."
			:Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."
			:29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.
			:On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"
			:These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.
			:I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. ] (]) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information ==
	I'm sorry this is coming up again.
			*{{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)
	Quite recently I opened an ANI case regarding ]'s conduct towards me. AD86 was blocked in late March for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Despite this, ] closed my ANI filing claiming that it stemmed from a content rather than conduct dispute. That said, when I asked Blackmane for clarification, they cited a lack of admin involvement and acknowledged that there had been incivility (]), though they also recommended that I pursue this as a content dispute and go to DRN. I , and the finding there was in my favor regarding the content matter, though AD86 neglected to participate and little was said regarding their conduct, which admittedly would have been off-topic.
			: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)
	Both before and after the DRN filing AD86 continued to make, IMO, incivil and inappropriate comments regarding their views of my conduct: , , , . This despite being encouraged to desist by other editors: , .
			== Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP ==
	I had nevertheless hoped that AD86 might move on once that dispute tapered off, but they have once again begun participating in a Talk page discussion and are showing an inability or unwillingness to focus on content rather than contributor. Given the fact that they have ''never'' contributed to the underlying article, it is very difficult for me to believe that this is anything other than wikihounding by AD86.
			{{atop
			| result = Edit summary revdel'd and {{noping2|GreatLeader1945}} blocked for one week for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
	It seems clear to me that despite AD86's claim of wanting nothing to do with me, they in fact are interested in actively harassing me. Please review this and take whatever actions you deem necessary to get this disruptive behavior to stop. Thank you. ] (]) 11:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			Apologies if this is the incorrect location, ] is a BLP violation and may need redacting. ] (]) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	I only went through some of the diffs and saw nothing particularly shocking. What I DID see though was accusations of you forum and admin shopping. What say you? '''<font color="gold">★]</font>]]]<font color="gold">★</font>''' 12:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Per ], you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. ] (]/]) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks, I've made a note of that. ] (]) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== revoke TPA for ]? ==
	I was ''really'' hoping that I would not be pulled into this madness and that this had been concluded, so I'm still perplexed to have received an invitation to this incident. After all, I only provided my input on the ''American Dad!'' talk page once.
			{{atop
			| result = Done. ] (]/]) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			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)
	Anyways, on the subject matter, I would like to give my input. I would argue that Doniago may have reacted explosively to this dispute in the first place in a conflict that could have been avoided in a much less convoluted manner. However, I did look at AmericanDad86's latest contributions, which includes visits to Doniago's frequent collaborations and was shocked to see that AmericanDad86 has indeed been looking to discredit and salt Doniago's credibility, based solely on their past dispute. I will continue to be scarcely involved with this ongoing dispute, but I find this conduct unacceptable. ]<sub>&nbsp;]•]</sub> 12:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:It would seem both parties are at fault then. '''<font color="gold">★]</font>]]]<font color="gold">★</font>''' 12:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I am willing to acknowledge that I may have overreacted to the initial dispute, but I certainly have not made any effort to follow AD86's contribution history beyond the scope of their disagreements with me, nor have I ever accused them of "whining" or otherwise made any conscious attempt to miscast their editing patterns. ] (]) 12:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I was a DRN volunteer which helped with this when it was lodged as a DRN case, I would largely agree with DarthBotto's summary, the content matter is over and done with, AD86 should now ] / ] and get back to editing. -- ] (]) 12:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Consensus reached? AD86 drops the stick and we all forget about it? Time to close this? '''<font color="gold">★]</font>]]]<font color="gold">★</font>''' 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::That's all I'm looking for, but thus far, as I noted in my initial post, they've seemed unwilling or unable to change their behavior even when asked by other editors to chill out. But again, as long as they stop targeting me (and ideally don't treat other editors in the same manner) I'm content. ] (]) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Close on the basis that this is a warning to ALL involved parties that this behaviour MUST stop or there WILL be sanctions. Can we agree on that? '''<font color="gold">★]</font>]]]<font color="gold">★</font>''' 12:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Sounds fair to me, probably best with the addition of user warning templates (eg. ] or ], or as otherwise appropriate) -- ] (]) 13:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	: Errrrr...we're closing a complaint as having consensus, even though one of the parties has not even participated? How exactly does that happen? (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 13:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:The dispute seems fairly minor, but your right it was an oversight on my part. '''<font color="gold">★]</font>]]]<font color="gold">★</font>''' 13:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Indeed. RetroLord, I would suggest that you not declare threads closed on the basis that "if people don't stop, there ''will'' be sanctions" - you're not an administrator. While this does not reduce the value put behind your opinion, it ''does'' mean that you would have literally no way of enforcing that threat, or of guaranteeing that your statement is true. Please try to limit consensus decisions you reach to things you can enforce. ] (]) 17:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	*I would be interested in hearing AmericanDad's reason for intervening . The stats at the Sherlock Holmes article that AmericanDad has never edited the article. If he's tracking Doniago through his contribution history then Doniago has a legitimate harrassment concern, and that needs to stop. I encounter Doniago quite often and his edits have always appeared sound to me, and since I have never encountered AmericanDad before it would be unfair of me to judge him either way; but if he has genuine concerns about Doniago's editing patterns—in fact any editor's editing behavior—then he should raise them at RfC/U rather than engaging them on articles that don't come under his editing concern. ] (]) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your comments Betty. I'm not going to claim that everything I've done in the course of this apparent dispute has been beyond reproach, but if in the end the consensus is that I'm to be Warned (or worse) for my own conduct, then I would ask for a clear explanation as to what I've done wrong and what I could have done better. My perspective as it stands right now is that I may have overreacted initially, but when things went to ANI the first time around I was directed to DRN, AD86 continued with their behavior after things at DRN had resolved, and I waited until they engaged me on a different matter before coming here again. If I was at fault in some manner, then by all means take whatever actions you feel my conduct merits, but please give me some guidance so that I can ensure this does not recur and take more productive actions in the future. Thus far the only editor who seems to have anything strongly negative to say about my conduct in this matter is the same editor who I felt obligated to report and can't consider credible with regards to this. Thank you. ] (]) 21:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::As said on WP:DRN, I am not going to take sides on this matter but I will say that this conflict is intense and extensive as all get out. It appears to be causing Doniago a lot of frustration, and AmericanDad86 does seem to be somewhat opinionated concerning his perceived accuracy of his editing style. I don't know whose more to blame, but I have offered my own perspective on this dispute.<span style="font: 12px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">]]</span> 22:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::: I followed this back from Doniago's , having read it quite by chance. After doing a bit of homework, it's clear to me that Doniago has a legitimate complaint regarding AD68's actions; one needs only read AD68's comments on the 3RR filing by Doniago, which attempt to make the issue all about Doniago, to see there is some effort to act on what appears to be a grudge to my outsider's eyes. To write this off as a content dispute would do Doniago a great disservice, and will only give AD68 license to escalate his harassment. I might also add I'm a bit uncomfortable with Retrolord's efforts to interpret events for everyone, then rush this to closure, particularly given he is not an admin, and seems to have some recent issues of his own. It's not helping the situation, and I appreciate DWatkins' reminder that there are procedures we adhere to. --] (]) 22:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Let me say right up front that I have been contacted by DonIago about this. To this point I have chosen not to comment but the wall of text below more or less proves DonIago's point. When an editor is being attacked the way DonIago has been I can well understand the need to ask for input from others that know how they have edited in the past. While there is clear evidence of stalking there are only two items germane to this page. First, the constant violations of "Comment on content and not the contributor" need to stop. Second, if AD86 thinks they have a legitimate concern they need to open a RCF/U. To this point I can't see blocks being handed out as they are "preventative not punitive." I would suggest an interaction ban between these two editors may be needed. Also I would also ask that some admins add there input so that this thread does not continue to spin on and on. ] | ] 00:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			== Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations ==
	:::::Unsurprising Doniago contacted you to defend him before you said that. As I have evidenced in detail down below, the user's tactic is going from editor to editor and admin to admin INCESSANTLY to get them to defend them and if they don't he bickers with them, which I have presented down below. Marnette, you are not the first user I have had to contend with because Doniago has sent them after me and you likely won't be the last. As stated down below, he's bounces around Misplaced Pages trying to get numerous users to defend him and if they don't, he bickers with them until they do or leaves in a huff. A quintessential example is when he told ] to explain what happened on an Administrative Noticeboard dispute to me '''on an article's talk page of all places''' so that he wouldn't look as bad, as shown here where he asks this of user:Blackmane: ''"Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at ] to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that."'' This was following a long debate Doniago had with this editor to get him to defend him. It results in Blackmane coming to the article's talkpage stating "Doniago sent him" with this: . If users refuse to come and defend him, it turns into a bickering argument also as evidenced down below. ] (]) 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	===My piece===
	Quite frankly, I'm thoroughly ticked off that user:Doniago hasn't been blocked for what he pulled in our recent content dispute that he even finally admits he overreacted to in this very discussion as shown here
	. Every few months, Doniago instigates trivial edit wars with me. It started with a heated verbal war he started over the placing of a period, as shown here , here ; after I dropped the heated matter over the placing of a period and let the edit go his way despite other editors encouraging me to fight it out and not let it go (as shown here ), the user persisted in trying to start petty edit wars with me which I had been brushing off for several months, as shown here and here ; here where he tries to initiate another verbal war with me over petty grammar concerns before realizing his antics resulted in an unconstructive revert, as shown here and here ; and most recently here where he starts yet another trivial edit war with me on stable edit that had existed for over a year on the article in question of which I didn't even incorporate, as shown here where user:TBrandley makes an edit that the show always starts with parental rating in early 2012 , Indiasummer removes that edit a couple weeks ago here , I restore it here with a source and Doniago immediately removes it with the edit summary to me of "WP:Trivia! Don't include ratings unless they're significant." , and an admin comes and restores it here and also informs Doniago that he is wrong for trying to remove a stable edit that I never made in the first place .
			Dear admins,
	I'm the one to follow policy and initiate a debate on the matter on the article's talk page rather than engaging in a revert war with the user, as shown here but user:Doniago doesn't even debate the matter, but makes repeated threats that he's going to report me on the Administrative Noticeboards, as shown here and here .
			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.
	With that, he proceeded onto the Administrative Noticeboards where he was bickering with the administrators, criticizing them, and expressing impatience with them that they "take too long" to make decisions. His case was closed and he was told to treat the matter as a content dispute: , , here and here .
			I am happy to cooperate with all of you. Thanks for your time.
	When that didn't work, Doniago began going to the talk pages of numerous editors to try to assist him in his aims to get me blocked, as shown here , here , here , here , etc., etc., etc.
			Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:] is what you are looking for. This noticeboard doesn't handle reviews of recent deletions of articles. And I'm not seeing any reports about "alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts", on this noticeboard or on your talk page, so it's unclear how we can help you in that regard.]] 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	He was repeatedly told to treat the matter as a content dispute. When that didn't work, he started complaining on help pages. This led to a discussion between him and someone from the help page in which he was whining that there's something wrong with Misplaced Pages administrators and the way they do business and the system of Misplaced Pages altogether, as shown here , here , here , etc. An individual from the help page, user:I dream of Horses, told him the same thing as the admins which was to treat the matter as a content dispute and that his protest didn't belong on the Help page: and here ,, here , etc., etc., etc. etc. Several times, Doniago is told to treat the matter as an content dispute and stop making attempts to get me blocked, as shown such as here , here , etc., and when he isn't told things such as this or anything that isn't scolding remarks to yours truly, he bickers with the person, as shown 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)
			:::For added context, see ], from where the user was sent here. -- ] (]) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			I was pinged to this discussion, but have no recollection of any involvement. It's not a topic which interests me. ] (]) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	And Doniago didn't just admit to "overreacting" above in this very discussion. In his attempts to get me blocked, Doniago admitted on Blackmane's talkpage (of whom he was criticizing for telling him to treat our matter as a content dispute) that he has engaged in this type of behavior with other editors where he blows content disputes out of proportion and tries to use the Administrative Noticeboards to his advantage. This is shown here where he states the following at the user's talkpage: ''"I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred'' (as shown here ).
			: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.
	Meanwhile, I was busy ignoring these shenanigans and debating out the dispute in the multiple forums Doniago had opened up (such as shown here and here in a debate Doniago opens up but is not involved with because he's too busy bouncing around from editor to editor and admin to admin trying to get me blocked: ]). Finally, the user obeys the commands of other editors and opens the matter up in the dispute resolution process noticeboard, which really isn't needed because he had already opened up the debate in multiple other forums. Honestly, I didn't even know where to debate out the matter with this user as he had opened the matter up in several forums I'd been debating in by the time he had opened it up at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
			: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 ] (]) 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::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)
			:::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.
			:::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 of 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)
			== Mass Removal of External Links by User:Dronebogus. ==
	At the dispute resolution noticeboard, the rules of discussion were not to bring in any other matters outside of the content dispute but to focus centrally on the content dispute, as shown here . But Doniago blatantly disobeys these orders and yet again with no provocations began complaining about his failure to get me blocked on the Administrative Noticeboards and everyone's failure to see things his way (as shown here and here ).
			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.
	As is always the case in order to get these trivial matters that are blown out of proportion by Doniago resolved, I had to swallow my pride and let the editor have his way on the edit. To do this, I finally refrained from getting involved in his dispute resolution process (the umpteenth place he opened up the matter) and let him have his way on the edit in question, as shown here and here ). Again, that matter involving his outrageous behavior was resolved because I had to be the bigger man again and let this user have his way on the edit. The edit was rather trivial one that I didn't originally incorporate at that and I had tired of user:Doniago's bouncing around from editor to editor, admin to admin, venue to venue, telling them to assist him in getting me blocked without him being blocked for violating numerous policies, from clear violations of ] and telling other editors to use article talk pages as a venue to essentially make him look good and scold me, as shown here where he asks this of user:Blackmane: ''"Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at ] to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that."''
			Here are some examples of their removals:
	Moreover, Doniago was also subtly antagonizing me at my talk page during all this harassment. Following compliments I had received from ] (as shown here ), Doniago comes to my talk page and writes that I'm plenty active to the user who sent me the compliment. Mind you, this is the same remark Doniago made in his failed attempt to try to get me blocked at the Administrative Noticeboards as shown here where he writes the following at the Admin Noticeboards: ''"Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either"''
	Naturally when I have been plagued by this user's antics and his own admissions that he's embarked on this behavior with others, I become concerned that he's doing it to other editors when I see this , this , this following what appears to be edit warring behavior, as shown here , , , , , etc.
	Moreover, user Betty doesn't just come out of nowhere. Much like Doniago did in his first attempts at getting me blocked in what was a content dispute turned sabotage attempt by him, he seems to have gone to her talk page to ask her defend him . As said before, Doniago instigates trivial editing disputes every few months in which he tries to get me blocked but ends up bickering and whining to admins because he is unsuccessful. As always, the matter ends up with me having to swallow my pride and let him have his little way with the edit as I know he could care less about the edit in question and is simply intending to get me blocked. I move forward, he leaves in a tizzy because he was unable to get me blocked and then it starts all over again in a month or so unless of course I brush it off. This is all detailed above. Because he clearly gets a kick out of this, I became very suspicious that he was doing it with other editors when I saw him engaged in an edit war literally 2 days later. I have every right to express my concerns when he goes to the edit war noticeboard, as shown here and tries to get other editors blocked despite the fact that he too is engaged in edit warring with them within the same dispute as I document here . ] (]) 23:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:] - You need to trim that down to 500 words at the most if you expect anyone to actually read it.--v/r - ]] 23:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Well Doniago's misconduct is a long story and to correctly understand why user:Doniago is out of line, the issue needs to be presented from start to finish. I've provided all the diffs right in front of your faces as evidence. I can't do much more beyond providing the full story combined with all the evidence. How this user has managed to stay active despite the behavior which is detailed in full above is beyond me. My stepping in another matter in which I thought he was engaging in his same behaviors he did with me doesn't qualify him to scurry on to the Administrative Noticeboards again. Basically, he was engaging in edit warring with another editor as shown by a slew of reversions yet reports the other editor for edit warring and I present the diffs that revealed his edit warring in the matter he reported his antagonist over. Again, here are his examples of edit warring and I have every right to report it: , , , , . He proceeded to report me for reporting his edit warring behavior of which he left out when reporting his antagonist at the Sherlock Holmes article. He seems to use this venue as a means to try to get his way which needs to be nipped in the bud. When he's unsuccessful, he harasses everyone to get involved and get me blocked to no end. He has now admitted to his behavior being an overreaction. Is his own admission not enough? He states to being critical of Misplaced Pages's administrators and administrative noticeboards because he had other issues with users outside of myself here at the ANI noticeboards also as documented above (again, as shown here ). Is that admission too not enough that there's a problem with this editor? ] (]) 23:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::No, you didn't just explain the story. You inserted a bunch of fluff that isn't necessary. Examples are:
	:::*"Moreover, user Betty doesn't just come out of nowhere."
	:::*"Much like Doniago did in his first attempts at getting me blocked in what was a content dispute turned sabotage attempt by him"
	:::*"Naturally when I have been plagued by this user's antics and his own admissions that he's embarked on this behavior with others"
	:::*"As is always the case in order to get these trivial matters that are blown out of proportion by Doniago resolved, I had to swallow my pride and let the editor have his way on the edit."
	:::It adds nothing of context to the narrative. Cut the fluff and present strictly the facts. What happened? "This happened , then this , then that which violated ]". If you don't, no one is going to pay attention to you. Your first paragraph does this well, and then you lose it.--v/r - ]] 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::No, actually I've taken the time out of my busy schedule to present Doniago's misconduct in full. If you want only half the story and are too lazy to investigate the matter in its entirety, dismiss yourself from the discussion, and stop being a nuisance. Thank you! ] (]) 00:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Im going to agree with v/r here, on any forum on WP, if you want action. You need to explain just the facts, adding your take on the situation rarely helps, leave that up to a fresh set of eyes. Failing to do so will either; not get your point across, or backfire. -- ] (]) 01:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::v/r is shorthand for "very respectfully." @AmericanDad86: We all have busy schedules and no one is going to take time out of theirs to read your novel. I, for instance, just spent 8 hours building houses for Habitat for Humanity. So reading ten paragraphs is bottom on my list of things to do tonight. And folks like me are what you're going to get. It's about etiquette. If you're too lazy to revise your statement to conform to internet etiquette, then good luck to you. Don't be surprised if things don't go your way.--v/r - ]] 01:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::TP, I don't think you're going to get anything respectful out of AD86. I never have. I blocked him back in March of this year for edit warring. I warned him in April based on a report at ANEW. Then, I made a mistake and in late May forgot about the previous history and engaged in a content dispute with him on ], an article he edits a lot (and badly). He reverted me, highlighting some apparent typos (I assume I made them but I'd have to research it more deeply to be sure) with this . Just to make sure I got his point, he left on my talk page. Because of the content dispute, I am, of course, involved and can no longer take any administrative action against him, much as he might deserve it. As for this particular dispute between him and Doniago, I have not evaluated the merits of it, so I can offer no assistance there. But if you're looking for a civil, collaborative editor, AD86 wouldn't be my first choice.--] (]) 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::*Bbb, that edit summary is one of the dumbest I've seen. ] (]) 02:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::]. ] (]) 01:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			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.
	:::::::"Too long, didn't read it" is respectful?! Anyways, guys I don't have the time to get in different debates as a result of Doniago. I have a job to get to. I also don't have the time to figure out how to distort these long-drawn out matters in which Doniago has embarked on a long course of harassment against my self into a few paragraphs. If you rather focus on the diffs as opposed to anything else, simply focus on the diffs and ignore everything else. Administrative Noticeboard policies don't say anything about solely presenting diffs. I explained my side of the dispute just as Doniago explained his side of the dispute while admitting to his overreactions in this very discussion. Anyways, I've put the user's misconduct out there for everyone to see from A to Z. I encourage admins who want the full story to review it and no one else. This will be my last comment here. Goodbye! ] (]) 01:55, 23 June 2013 (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.
	===Remedy===
			Thank you,
	I've now looked at a lot of the complaints by Doniago (his diffs) and a lot of the complaints by AD86 (which are subsumed in Doniago's diffs and also a few of the beginning diffs by AD86 here). I'll jump to my conclusion and then try to explain it. Doniago is sincerely trying to work out content disputes. AD86 is uninterested and manipulative. Doniago's biggest "fault" is he's not as adroit at presentation as he could be, which is why his original ANI complaint didn't go very far (even I reluctantly criticized Doniago for not presenting sufficient evidence). In addition, through sheer frustration, Donaiago does indeed try to get other editors to help him, although AD86's implicit accusation of canvassing is a bit much as sometimes Doniago is just trying to understand what other editors mean.
			JD Gale <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;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)
			: 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. ]&nbsp;] 20:55, 23 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)
			== User:Adillia ==
	AD86 has an unconstructive approach to content dispute resolution. He freely admits that he tries to ignore Doniago, hoping I suppose that Doniago will just go away if he has no one to argue with. That may be acceptable in some circumstances where an editor is being belligerent or circular, but I don't think Doniago is being either. AD86's alternative approach is to bombard the discussion with complaints about Doniago (as he's done here). It's a scattershot approach where some of the complaints may be valid, some may be partly valid, and many are simply wrong. However, given the avalanche, much of it is likely to stick.
			{{Userlinks|Aidillia}}
	What troubles me the most is the avoidance of real content resolution and resorting to defeating Doniago's arguments by character assassination. For example, AD86 simply didn't participate in the discussion at ]. Another example is highlighted here by AD86 itself and has to do with ]. As any of us who have been at Misplaced Pages for any length of time knows, Misplaced Pages uses what it calls logical punctuation, so if we refer to an television episode, we say "TV Episode". We don't say "TV Episode." Even though at least in most American English the latter is more common. Doniago rightly changed a few instances of that to put the period outside the punctuation. He met with resistance from AD86, and AD86 decided to let it go (big of him) but at the same time said other editors felt he should fight it, and the diff he uses to support that is by an editor who essentially argues that ] should be eliminated because the editor is a "trained writer" and he knows better. That kind of garbage at Misplaced Pages goes nowhere. If someone wants to challenge a policy or guideline, they should do so in the appropriate venue; otherwise, they're pretty much stuck with it.
			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 ].
	Now comes the hard part. What's the appropriate remedy for AD86's behavior? My sense, given my past interaction with AD86, is that this goes beyond AD86's interaction with Doniago and involves an aggressive, non-collaborative style (unless, of course, you agree with him). He called me a vandal. He called TP a "nuisance". Even when he doesn't call another editor an asshole expressly, he's clearly doing so by his rhetoric. He's dismissive. One of his favorite ploys, as seen here, is something like "I've done my part and have nothing more to say." This followed by "Goodbye!" It's an arrogant, I-know-best tactic and is not conducive to editing here. I don't see a topic ban being effective here as I don't know what it would cover. An interaction ban would not be particularly useful as it's not just a problem with Doniago. Civility bans are very difficult to implement and enforce, but of all the bans would probably be the most applicable. That leaves us with blocks for personal attacks and failure to collaborate. Unless, of course, we can get an acknowledgment from AD86 that his behavior is unconstructive and that he will improve. This is all assuming that AD86's conduct is sanctionable at this juncture. I think it is, but as I said earlier, I'm can't be the admin who blocks, and, of course, a ban would require community consensus.--] (]) 15:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I realize it's not applicable to this forum, but I endorse your comment and thank you very much for the time and effort it must have taken for you to put it together Bbb. ] (]) 16:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	Bb23, my stating goodbye because I've presented the entirety of my case on the matter and am leaving it up to administrators to make a determination is an "arrogant I-know best tactic" to you?!!!! You also flat out label a user's comments that supported me as "garbage" and I'm somehow the aggressive editor. All righty then! By the way everybody, administrator bb23 was among one of the admins who harshly criticized Doniago for coming to the admin noticeboards the last time over Doniago claiming he was personally attacked on basis of my complaining about his removal of stable edits without first discussing and other baseless, petty reverts of my material over the past several months, one edit in which he had to make a self revert on. He claimed my reference to him as "belligerent" for this repeated behavior was a personal attack and came running here whining about it. All the admins and Bb23 included found his case had no merit. Suspiciously, when admin bb23 saw I was involved, he just so happened to change his entire position on the matter. This administrator has just admitted to a previous editing dispute he and I had in which he repeatedly inserted typos and other misinformation so his actions and commentary in this matter are nothing more than vindictive. On his own, he has admitted to the typos in question but conveniently didn't do much to point them out. Included with the typos, Bb23 made a drastic revert without discussing anything on the articles talk page. The fact that he is commenting so heavily on this issue and has changed his position so drastically is nothing more than vindictive.
			: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)
	Also, how exactly am I the manipulative one when Doniago is going around making deals and bargains with other editors to defend him, such as shown on Marnette's user talk page here , this leading to her subsequent comments in this very discussion. Doniago has been incessantly using these tactics of bargaining, begging, and/or harassing editor after editor to come and defend him and make him look good and make me look bad in all of our dealings with each other. He did this with a whole host of editors after his failure here at the admin noticeboards and then by the way criticized everyone here at the admin noticeboards and the entire system. Meanwhile I complain about all these underhanded ploys and focus on content disputes and bb23 labels me as the manipulative one. For the most part, this matter has been commented on by users Doniago has begged, bargained with, or whined incessantly to and a two vindictive admins. This is exactly why a lot of people complain about the site and stop using it. People badmouthed it all over the Web for exactly this reason. Seems Doniago's ploys and politicking around from editor to editor has worked. I'm really not in the business of politicking around from editor to editor begging and making bargains with other editors to make me look good and make other editors look bad. I simply call it as I see it. Perhaps I'm using the wrong web site if success here requires Doniago's ploys and politics. ] (]) 17:53, 23 June 2013 (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)
	:Unfortunately, AD86, your distortions of everything only make your defense of yourself and your accusations against Doniago (and others) that much weaker.
			:::] 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 didn't "harshly" criticize Doniago in the last ANI report. I criticized him and said so in my post here. Nor did I criticize him in the rather inflamed way you described. I just said he hadn't presented sufficient evidence to support his complaint.
			:::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)
	:*No one found the previous report to be without merit. We never got to the merits.
			::::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)
	:*I was well aware of who you were when I posted at the last ANI report. I think my comments there show fairness, hardly vindictiveness.
			:::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*I haven't changed my position on anything. I thought your editing at ] was awful, which is in part why I reverted. However, I didn't continue to revert because I felt that to do so I would have to engage in a protracted content dispute with you, and I don't do that as much as I used to since I've become an admin. At the same time, if I ''wasn't'' willing to do so, I couldn't insist on removing your edits, so I stopped editing the article.
			::::::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)
	:*The rest of your comments are just a continuing, repetitive rant of what you've already said in so many places. It doesn't warrant any further response.
			: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)
	:--] (]) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (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 ===
	Bb23, you have just called another editor's comments outside of my own as "garbage" because they agreed with me; you call me every name in the book from "arrogant" and "manipulative" to "i think I'm better than everyone" on basis of saying "goodbye" because i completed my say on my side of the dispute. You've also said things like all my edits are horrible. In the same breath, this admin has said im incivil. Bb23 you are a nothing more than a vindictive hypocrite engaging in a behavior you're trying to make criticisms about. Bb23 needs to be stripped of his admin tools. He is a quintessential example of why people leave this web site, never come back, and complain about it all about the Internet. He is an incendiary user. Again, I had planned on having my say on the matter and being done with it but this admin blatantly taunts me for my desire to have my say on the matter and be done with it and lures me into an altercation by labeling me as arrogant and that I think I'm better than everyone for this reason. I have only been blocked once at Misplaced Pages and it was by this very admin. His behavior was why i was getting ready to retire from Misplaced Pages once before. His behaviors in this very discussion should example primely what I had to deal with the first time around. This admin is looking for petty revenge through an altercation so for now I'm not going to read any more of his commentary. Doniago has a habit of harassing and bargaining until he gets his way as evidenced above. The sore bb23 seems to be here to give him credibility because he feels a second opinion will strengthen doniagos. Anyways I'm not going to continue arguing back and forth nor read the antagonism from the biased and personally attacking admin. I will simply await the result. I've told it straight up, called it as I saw it, didn't politic or forum shop, so now what happens happens. If I haven't made clear the in appropriateness I've dealt with from the two individuals in question beyond verbal accounts and diffs, then there's nothing I can do. I was told by a random editor just last week how valuable my contributions are and how he hopes i dont retire after he viewed one of my edits. however, it is hard not to when dealing with editors like the two in question and they are not penalized or brought to order... Well, Doniago was but disobeyed and now seems to be getting his way because of it. But at this point with these two editors engaging in outrageous behavior and not yet receiving blocks makes me shocked. Again, numerous people do not return to this site and make complaints about it because of behaviors like the ones of bb23 and Doniago. If these two users are to get their way in despite all their behavior, very well. Ill simply vouch for all the complaints made against the web site for the very behaviors they engage in and add my own. No arguing, altercations about it. Simple as that. Bb23 further comments by you won't be read because of your crudeness and vindictiveness over me reverting your typos. ] (]) 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*I have just warned AD86 for the personal attacks in the diatribe above. One more such outburst, one more time such unacceptable accusations, and it's a block. Bbb, have you, in the meantime, come up with a solution of sorts? The only thing I foresee is escalating blocks. ] (]) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|D.18th}}
			<s>This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore ].</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Drmies, would this by any chance have to do with my concerns of anti-black racism made against you just early last month?! Just curious! After I presented to the noticeboards an example of where another editor crudely used the term "nigger," you almost immediately closed the Administrative Noticeboard discussion on me. Directly after you did that, I sternly questioned you on your user talk page here as to why you seemingly condoned the crude use of the term "nigger" as exampled in your premature close of the discussion and with no consequences to the editor in question after my revealing this. Unsurprisingly, as shown in the following diff, another editor even came forward and flat-out accused you of racism and others expressed concerns with the crude use of "nigger", all as shown here in the discussion I opened up on your talk page where I questioned you on your concerning close and here . After several editors expressed their concerns and one of which accused this admin of racism, the admin was finally forced to admit such behavior was inappropriate as shown here , never fully apologizing for closing the board nor penalizing the editor in question.
			<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)
	::Anyways, Misplaced Pages ought to instate a policy in which admins that editors have been heavily involved with with regards to past grievances cannot make efforts to play such integral roles in later disputes of those editors. It's a nasty abuse of the position of administrator. It's bad enough I'm dealing with different users Doniago cozied up to, bargained with, begged, and politicked to defend him and make me look bad, such as shown here , but I also have the two admins that I had grievances against for condoning "nigger" and continually reverting in a typo popping up out of nowhere. Isn't there a policy these two admins have to follow on not popping up out of the blue for petty revenge? Yea, believe it or not Drmies, I found it suspicious that you closed a Noticeboard discussion immediately after reading that the term "nigger" had been used and gave no consequences. So I sternly questioned you and had every right to. ] (]) 04:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			:{{re|Aidilla}} You have failed to notify {{User|D.18th}} of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::For anyone else who wants to see the close by Drmies, it is at ]. It is no surprise to find that the closing statement was highly appropriate. The complaint regarding "anti-black racism" appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding cultural differences. I wouldn't use an edit summary like the one in question {{diff|Don't ask, don't tell|prev|521031972|diff}}, but it did not express racism, and it certainly is not sanctionable. ] (]) 08:07, 24 June 2013 (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. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*: The problems aren't limited to file space. See ]. ] ] 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Resumption again===
	:::I'd been debating whether to make a comment seeing as I had previously engaged both Doniago and AD86 (if I may abbreviate it so) to sort out their content differences after boldly NAC'ing the last ANI. I've struggled through AD86's incredibly long posts and went through many of the diffs. On the whole, IMO, I find that AD86 has a habit of histrionically misrepresenting Doniago's statements. In good faith, I had previously presumed this to be a misunderstanding due to text based communication but have since taken the stance that AD86 is simply lacking in good faith with regards to Doniago's (and from what I see above anyone else who criticises him in any way) efforts to be collegial. I'm sure that AD86 will take this as a sign that I've been canvassed and that Doniago has begged/bargained/politicked me onto their side. My interaction with Doniago and AD86 has been limited to the brief discussion on my talk page, which has yet to be archived, and a brief comment on the article talk page where their dispute occured. I've found Doniago to be receptive to other opinions, for instance they agreed to my suggestion to take the content issue to DRN despite their misgivings and accepted the opinions of the volunteers there. They even had the good grace to invite me to the DRN despite my lack of contribution to the article. In direct contrast, AD86 instantly goes for the bad faith assumption and everything goes downhill from there.
			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.
	:::@AD86, I suggest you read ], which is what you are getting at. However, the salient point will be that admins who have previously had admin related dealings with an editor are not required to recuse themselves from dealing with the same editor in the future '''as long as previous interactions are solely limited to their administrative function'''. You will note that Bbb23 stated this very clearly above where he has refrained from using any of his admin privileges. Drmies, OTOH, has only ever dealt with you in their admin capacity, as such they're not constrained by ]. ] (]) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::TY Blackmane and Johnuniq. I have a vague recollection of AmericanDad's "stern" words, and I certainly won't block them for continuing the bad faith and poor assumptions they display (so their attitude is more general, not just reserved for Bbb23--"petty revenge"? pfff, so much hot air). I'll leave this matter for the next admin, and/or for the next time they prove themselves unable to work collaboratively. ] (]) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Just as a followup, my talk page archived and there's somem wacky behaviour in my archive listing so is a link to the discussion that may be relevant here. ] (]) 08:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
			* ] – @] created Draft:Please Stop Drinking pointing to ].
	===Convenience break===
			* ] – @] created Draft:Please Quit Drinking pointing to the same mainspace.
	My gosh, the things that happen when you're not on-wiki. Late last night I read Drmies's question to me above about a solution. I didn't respond because I wasn't logged in and I don't edit unless I am. Now that I have slept and returned from my work day, I see that AD86 has given folk even more ammunition to sanction him. The comments about Drmies are even more over the top than AD86's comments about others. I disagree with Drmies that he's involved, but that, of course, is his decision to make, although he's free to reconsider. I'm of the firm opinion that an admin is not involved just because an editor says nasty things about them, ''unless'' the admin is blocking only for those nasty things. Otherwise, any editor who doesn't want to be sanctioned by an admin could game the system simply by saying nasty things about an admin to avoid sanctions. ''My'' involvement is traditional as I've had content disputes with AD86. Drmies is simply not involved.
			* ] – 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
	All that said, I'd like to respond to Drmies's original question, both for his benefit and for any other admin who is evaluating this topic. One solution, as Drmies noted, is escalating blocks. For AD86's previous behavior and for his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, a preventive block of some duration is warranted. The precise duration would be up to the blocking admin. As I stated earlier, I see no obvious content topic ban because AD86's edits and refusal to collaborate cross topic boundaries. Civility restrictions are probably the best option, but I don't know how difficult it would be to gain a consensus for it. However, might be a good model for it. Another possibility, although I don't think it goes to the heart of the problem, would be a variant on an arbitration sanction, but imposed by the community, obviously. That is, AD86 would be prohibited from reverting on any article without first going to the talk page, explaining why he wants to revert, and obtaining a consensus for the reversion. The reversion would still have to be implemented by ''another'' editor, not by AD86. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm not going to formally propose anything right now to permit the alternatives to be discussed generally first.--] (]) 23:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			* ] – D.18th created Draft:Typhoon Company pointing to ].
	: I'm not an admin, of course, but I have to confess that after somewhere close to 24 hours, I still find myself deeply disturbed by AD86's final post, in particular, the inflammatory use of the so-called "n-word" and similar language throughout his post. Used once, gets the point across, used five times with links to several more uses is excessive, designed to insight and potentially hate-speech. African-American or no, this is a disturbing display of inflammatory language, and should elicit ome response from an admin. I find myself very troubled that it has merited no reaction from the community. --] (]) 02:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
			* ] – Aidillia created Draft:Typhoon Boss with content of "{{tq|Typhoon Boss}}".
	:Back when I opened my original ANI case I remember believing, or maybe just hoping, that if someone, not even necessarily an admin, would just talk to AD86 about why their behavior was non-productive that they might reconsider how they were approaching disputes here. Then they began speaking here and, I have to admit, I started to feel like I really didn't need to say anything more with regards to their conduct because, based on the comments I was seeing from other editors, the problems had become self-evident. I'd still ''like'' to think that they'll acknowledge some degree of culpability or change their behavior voluntarily, but as I feared at the time, to date it seems that they've taken a lack of repercussions for their behavior as carte blanche to persist in it. Given that they've done it before, I'm forced to believe that if this ANI case doesn't result in some degree of sanction that they'll simply end up pointing to it later claiming that their behavior was faultless as evidenced by the lack of consequences. ] (]) 05:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
			* ] – 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)
	== Ryan Zich ==
			: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.
	Can I ask for someone to keep an eye on {{user|Ryan Zich}}? I pointed out why his edits to the infobox in ] went against what ] said, but he has not only reverted me, but also . His edits on my talk page suggest he's insistent in having his way and only his way, and I'd like someone to set him straight. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 01:25, 23 June 2013 (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)
	:It's not the best start for a new user, worth keeping an eye on, but I don't see need for admin action yet.--v/r - ]] 01:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			::Both Aidillia and D18 upload a new copy of any file I upload, for no good reason. 👎 ] (]) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (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. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 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)
			==]==
	*I would like someone to straighten out {{user|TenPoundHammer}} There is no need for administrator action yet. There is just something about how he has been arguing with me that is a little bit scary. Its Just worrying me. Thank you. ] (]) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			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)
	**Are you intentionally trolling or do you just not understand what's going on and you're trying to put on a tough guy attitude?--v/r - ]] 03:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
			:{{done}} ] (]) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	***I'd also note that there's a series of page moves that appear excessive, and I think at leas tone of them needs to go, as I believe it may have created a double or triple redirect. ] (]) 05:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	Zich, calm down and understand that a "tough guy" attitude doesn't work here, try a "rational guy" attitude instead. ] (]) 00:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			== 37.47.76.95 - personal attacks ==
	== Very strange issue ==
			{{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)
	{{hat|Purely content dispute}}
			{{abot}}
	Hi everyone. Today, I worked extensively per ] to upgrade and improve list at ] article. After a while, I posted this version of that list:
			== ] ==
	'''Knesset Speakers (1949–present)'''
	{|class="wikitable" align="right"
	!colspan=8|Colour key
	|-
	| style="background-color:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}" |
	| ]/]/<br>]/]/]
	| style="background-color:{{Likud/meta/color}}" |
	| ]
	| style="background-color:{{Kadima/meta/color}}" |
	| ]
	|}
	A total of sixteen people have served as Speaker of the Knesset, one of whom, ], have served two non-consecutive terms.
			{{userlinks|Mr. Accuracy Specialist}}<br>
	{|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
	|-
	!colspan="6"|Speaker
	!rowspan="2"|Knesset
	|-
	! No.
	! Portrait
	! width=150|Name<br><small>(Birth–Death)</small>
	! colspan="2" width=250|Term of Office
	! Political Party
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''1'''
	| ] || ]<br>יוסף שפרינצק<br><small>(1885–1959) || 1949 || 1959 || ] || ], ], ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''2'''
	| ] || ]<br>נחום ניר<br><small>(1884–1968) || 1959 || 1959 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''3'''
	| ] || ]<br>קדיש לוז<br><small>(1895–1972) || 1959 || 1969 || ], ] || ], ], ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''4'''
	| ] || ]<br>ראובן ברקת<br><small>(1906–1972) || 1969 || 1972 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''5'''
	| ] || ]<br>ישראל ישעיהו שרעבי<br><small>(1908–1979) || 1972 || 1977 || ] || ], ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Likud/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''6'''
	| ] || ]<br>יצחק שמיר<br><small>(1915–2012) || 1977 || 1980 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Likud/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''7'''
	| ] || ]<br>יצחק ברמן<br><small>(1913–) || 1980 || 1981 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Likud/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''8'''
	| ] || ]<br>מנחם סבידור<br><small>(1917–1988) || 1981 || 1984 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''9'''
	| ] || ]<br>שלמה הלל<br><small>(1923–) || 1984 || 1988 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''10'''
	| ] || ]<br>דב שילנסקי<br><small>(1924–2010) || 1988 || 1992 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''11'''
	| ] || ]<br>שבח וייס<br><small>(1935–) || 1992 || 1996 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Likud/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''12'''
	| ] || ]<br>דן תיכון<br><small>(1937–) || 1996 || 1999 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Israeli Labor Party/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''13'''
	| ] || ]<br>אברהם בורג<br><small>(1955–) || 1999 || 2003 || ], ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Likud/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''14'''
	| ] || ]<br>ראובן ריבלין<br><small>(1939–) || 2003 || 2006 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Kadima/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''15'''
	| ] || ]<br>דליה איציק<br><small>(1952–) || 2006 || 2009 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Likud/meta/color}}; color:white;" |<small>('''14''')</small>
	| ] || ]<br>ראובן ריבלין<br><small>(1939–) || 2009 || 2013 || ] || ]
	|-
	| style="background:{{Likud/meta/color}}; color:white;" |'''16'''
	| ] || ]<br>יולי-יואל אדלשטיין<br><small>(1958–) || 2013 || || ] || ]
	|-
	|}
	Sometime after that, ] reverted my edits, saying my prefered version of the list is "awful" and restored earlier (and current) version:
	'''Knesset Speakers (1949-present)'''
	{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
	! #
	! Image
	! Name
	! Party
	! Term start
	! Term end
	! Knesset
	|- bgcolor=#FFB6B6
	| 1 || ] || ] || ] || 1949 || 1959 || ], ], ]
	|- bgcolor=#FFB6B6
	| 2 || ] || ] || ] || 1959 || 1959 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#FFB6B6
	| 3 || ] || ] || ], ] || 1959 || 1969 || ], ], ]
	|- bgcolor=#FFB6B6
	| 4 || ] || ] || ] || 1969 || 1972 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#FFB6B6
	| 5 || ] || ] || ] || 1972 || 1977 || ], ]
	|- bgcolor=#CCEEFF
	| 6 || ] || ] || ] || 1977 || 1980 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#CCEEFF
	| 7 || ] || ] || ] || 1980 || 1981 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#CCEEFF
	| 8 || ] || ] || ] || 1981 || 1984 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#FFB6B6
	| 9 || ] || ] || ] || 1984 || 1988 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#CCEEFF
	| 10 || ] || ] || ] || 1988 || 1992 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#FFB6B6
	| 11 || ] || ] || ] || 1992 || 1996 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#CCEEFF
	| 12 || ] || ] || ] || 1996 || 1999 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#FFB6B6
	| 13 || ] || ] || ] || 1999 || 2003 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#CCEEFF
	| 14 || ] || ] || ] || 2003 || 2006 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#FFFFCC
	| 15 || ] || ] || ] || 2006 || 2009 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#CCEEFF
	| 16 || ] || ] || ] || 2009 || 2013 || ]
	|- bgcolor=#CCEEFF
	|17||]||]||]||2013|| ||]
	|}
	As per ], I went to the ] to discuss the matter. I was shocked to hear that Number57 thinks that adding of the Hebrew name and birth/death year of the officeholder represents "introduction of unncessary information", as he put it. I was even more shocked when, after I told him that I added that data to make the article more like the ] and ], he said that "both lists are awful", and continued: ''A recent discussion between myself and another user agreed that the format used in ] was the best way forward (as the colours were felt to be a distraction), so I have slowly been implementing that on Israeli office holder lists, but hadn't got here yet''. I find this case really disturbing, because I thought we as editors here have a mission to make articles better than before, not worse. I'd really love to hear your opinion on this very strange issue. Cheers! --] (]) 18:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:The Hebrew names are quite useless to the 99.9999 % (not a scientific figure) who cant read it. ] (]) 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Not to mention this is a content dispute. Take it to ]. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::And you have not notified other involved editors, as required. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	== Unresponsive self-promotional SPA ==
	{{user|BlakePolzl}} has been promoting his form of ] at said article, spamming his personal website. Multiple editors have reverted him, and he even edit warred over this on June 1. He has failed to respond to or acknowledge any warnings. He's on his last warning for advertising, but based on his prior behavior and my prior experience, I don't expect it to matter (either he'll advertise again and get blocked, or he'll come here and try to say that he never got all the warnings and explanations, maybe with some bad faith accusations thrown my way). ] (]) 19:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Blakepolzl has been notified of this thread. ] (]) 19:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Clear cut, blocked.--v/r - ]] 20:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	== THC Loadee, again ==
	Prior discussions: ] and ]. Also blocked ], used a sock puppet during a block ] "I am banned....I'm going to ignore all of you and keep changing the article until Misplaced Pages no longer exists or someone comes to my home and cuts off my fingers so I can't type."
	:
	Along with problems with heat>light in a religious discussion, THC Loadee is repeatedly adding material against consensus at ].
	, , , ; new sources:, , , , , , , . Note that most of these are simply reverting various editors with no explanation/edit summary.
	:
	Reactions to prior blocks have not been productive: "" (promptly self-reverted), , followed by
	:
	Now we have a new and .
	:
	Argh. - ] (]) 21:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I've assumed {{user|99.14.132.112}} is the same person. The previous ip that was blocked as a sock was {{user|99.106.108.141}} --] (]) 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Sock case ("I have nothing but time.") and RPP added. - ] (]) 21:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Appears to be admitting to be a troll . Clearly ], consider indef andsemi protecting affected articles for a bit. <code>]]</code> 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Indeffed. ] (]) 21:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{archive top|result=Not a matter requiring intervention. ] (])}}
	I found administrator to be insulting and disrespectful.--] (]) 21:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:It certainly wasn't an optimal choice of words on his part, but your deletion nomination is extremely weak and should be withdrawn. ] (]) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::The deletion nomination for ] was made in ]. It's practically a two-page article with no checkable references at this point. At this point it is a clear-cut violation of WP's rules.--] (]) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:What do you suppose you want done? Do you want David to be harshly criticized for his rough language? Ok, it's not polite. But I can't see how you'd expect anything to be done on those grounds alone. I wouldn't block an IP for such mild language. Why did you even ask why he removed a PROD? PRODs can be removed for any reason by anyone. They are for non-controversial deletions only. Even the merest hint of controversy, say by someone removing the tag, means you have to take it to AfD. So go there. This doesn't belong on ANI.--v/r - ]] 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I suggest that Eppstein's administrator privileges be removed. Eppstein makes all administrators look bad by such behavior.--] (]) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::The comment was disrespectful, and perhaps he could be ], but I wouldn't expect anything else to be done based on one instance of momentary frustration.
	:::<span style="border:2px solid darkgreen;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:lightblue" > ] ]</span> 22:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Why do we think that everything is ANI worthy? This is not. Yeah, Eppstein's words aren't exactly kind, but to ask for a desysop is completely over the top. I'm going to close this right now. ] (]) 23:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Disruption by User:Up and in ==
	] has started a campaign of petty disruption. I believe that he is a sock-puppet of ] who is now avoiding all the traps by which sockpuppets are normally caught out: a ] last month was inconclusive. In the last few hours he has been subtly disruptive:
	*He changed the article ] to ] on the pretext that Boniface was French-born. The first time he merely changed the article content, after I reverted and request a justification from him, he changed the article name as well as links to the article. Rather than enter into an edit-war, I demanded a restoration of the situation and gave showing that Boniface himself never used a hypen in his name. User:Up and in ignored my request.
	:In an earlier incident in this same article I had to revert changes that he had made when he mis-read a piece of Afrikaans text and got a piece of Seychelles history wrong – my ].
	*In the article ] he changed the text
	::"he was '''ordained''' as a dominie (minister) in the Dutch Reformed Church in Graaff-Reinet, Cape Colony. In 1822 he was '''called''' to be dominie of the"
	:to
	::"he '''became''' a dominie (minister) in the Dutch Reformed Church in Graaff-Reinet, Cape Colony. In 1822 he '''became''' dominie of the".
	:(I bolded the changed words). I reverted, giving . His response was to replace the word "ordained" by the word "inducted" (which is totally inappropriate in this context), to edit the article ] and remove the South African connections and then in the article about Faure to state that "He wasn't a Scottish schoolteacher" (a reference to the way in which he had left the article ].
	* on its own might be innocent, but in the context of other changes, including by ] (which I ] to this one.
	The way in which ] is conducting himself suggests to me that he is looking for a fight. Hew knows that I have South African connections and that I am reasonably fluent in Afrikaans and I believe that he is leaving this trail of subtle changes to wind me up, but in so doing he is also vandalizing Misplaced Pages.
	<s>I would also like administrators’ view on his choice of user name</s> {{unsigned|Martinvl|22:44, 23 June 2013‎}} ] (]) 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I notified {{user|Up and in}} of this thread. ] (]) 22:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Up and in is a euphemism for a basket in basketball, generally a jump shot or a layup. I see nothing offensive or disruptive about it. Not an administrator, but I am thinking if you feel it is improper it is due to a lack of familiarity with American sports lingo. ] (]) 23:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	== User:LordZebedee ignoring consensus ==
	{{archive top|status=blocked|I'm ''pretty'' sure that doesn't count as irony. funny, though. ]&nbsp;]] 14:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	] has been repeatedly adding trivial/pop culture mentions at ] despite consensus that they should be removed and refuses to discuss the issue. He has, in one form or another, added this material times over the past 2 weeks. The section is discouraged by ] as well as ] as the source is an open wiki, not anything we would consider reliable. I have , at ] (where further consensus is to remove the material), and , none of which have helped. An IP editor created a section at ] explaining why the mention isn't appropriate and ] has assisted with reverts as well, so it's not simply me vs. him. I'm wondering what more can be done. ] (]) 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*One more time and it's a block for edit warring/disruptive editing (editing against consensus): the next admin can take their pick. I've issued them a templated edit warring message for good measure, and will leave a note as well. Thanks, and keep us posted. ] (]) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I'm with ] on this one 100%. This is so trivial an add, it beggars belief, & the refusal is so pointedly willful, I'd have ] him before now.... ] ]</font> 04:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::And he's done it again... ] ]</font> 10:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I've undone his fifth revert in as many days. Although I admittedly am unfamiliar with the subject of the article, it does strike me as trivial information he's attempting to add and the source appears to be unreliable. <span class='nounderlines' style="text-decoration:none">]&nbsp;<font color="#888888">]</font></span> 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I've blocked for 24 hours - maybe that will get some attention -- ] (]) 10:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC) <small>(no relation)</small>
	::::: Ironic. (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 11:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== ] ==
	{{resolved|] (]) 15:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	without contacting a specific admin, this AfD requires closure as it has gone on for 10 days and not been relisted. thanks. ] (]) 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Done. I'll forgive you the dangling modifier. ] (]) 04:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	== Block review - OrangesRyellow ==
	{{archive-top|1=Although consensus was leaning towards the block being "ok", a subsequent request for unblock that was clearly ]-compliant was acted upon. Good faith is always a good thing (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 16:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	{{user:OrangesRyellow}}
	I have just blocked OrangesRyellow for a week, for , in which he likens the respect afforded to ], ] and ] as getting "Nazis to lord over Jews". This comes after OrangesRyellow had previously made and had been . We are, sadly, plagued with nationalist POV-warriors on both sides of the India/Pakistan/Muslim/Hindu topic area, and OrangesRyellow is one of them. They are making the efforts of editors who are working very hard to present such topics in a neutral and well-sourced manner very difficult indeed. I think escalating action needs to be taken against such long-term troublemakers, and I request your feedback on my block -- ] (]) 06:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:<small>(I have notified all parties mentioned -- ] (]) 07:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC))</small>
	:*They've had a fair few warnings regarding the need to take care when commenting here. My last attempt was . - ] (]) 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': A bit more context, "Giving paramount importance to comments from people with a particular orientation would be disastrous. It would be like giving paramount importance to people from palestine on Israel-Palestine affairs. If you do that, the effect would be same as when you get {{tq|Nazis to lord over Jews}}. You may also want to keep in mind the point that RegentsPark may look like a Westerner to everyone, but may actually be Pakistani POV." To me that likening is not so clear here, maybe I am wrong. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 07:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:Any analogy of A to B, then B to C, etc, that ends in comparison with Nazi treatment of Jews is utterly obnoxious, however many steps it takes - it takes extreme bad faith to make an analogy between editor interaction at Misplaced Pages and the slaughter of millions of innocent adults and children. -- ] (]) 08:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*Oh wow! Another do-hell-with-WP:INVOLVED case. §§]§§ {]/]} 07:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*The block was warranted as OrangesRyellow had been advised or warned several times. Note that, apart from commenting here, Mrt3366 is forum shopping on ]. ] (]) 08:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''OrangesRyellow comment''' - copied from on their talk page. "Nowhere have I ever likened anyone to Nazis. You have blocked me by misrepresenting and cherry-picking my words. I was only illustrating the effect of giving paramount power and hearing to people from only one side of an equation and the Nazi-Jew thing is an easily recognizable illustration of that phenomenon. There is nothing nefarious or PA there.] (]) 08:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" <small>] (]) 08:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)</small>
	*Overturn block. There is no egregious personal attack here. Given the tendentious nature of editing by some editors who have been continuously assuming bad faith and are involved with bullying editors off talk pages, this action is unjustified and arbitrary. . According to ], "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users." — ] ] 09:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*Ah, the cavalry has arrived, You have been facilitating the POV-pushing for a while now. - ] (]) 09:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*Sitush, your continuous attempts at trolling users who do not agree with you are unhelpful. — ] ] 09:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*{{ec}} Come on Nick, you know how it works. If people make personal attacks, they are warned in order to '''prevent''' further personal attacks, and if multiple warnings fail to '''prevent''' further attacks, blocks are the inescapable outcome, to '''prevent''' further personal attacks. That's the way it has always worked here, so please leave off the tired old "not supposed to punish" line, eh? And by the way, do you not think your own "assuming bad faith" and "bullying editors off talk pages" comments are verging on attack territory. -- ] (]) 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*Ah, and accusations of "trolling" now too - way to go, Nick -- ] (]) 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*I fail to see how that was a "personal attack" &ndash; . Problematic? Yes. Block-worthy? Hardly. As an administrator who has been peripherally involved in this dispute, you should be more cautious while applying blocks. — ] ] 09:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::*I have only been "involved" from an admin standpoint - and that does not violate ] -- ] (]) 09:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': Oranges ought not to have said what he said, regardless of what the provocation was. My experience is that the provocation is not considered while such retaliation is judged. A few editors have been apotheosised, they can do wrong, they can hit below the belt, no action is taken. However that doesn't mean that they can be attacked similarly, that is a violation of relevant rules, and so actionable. Two wrongs do not make a right, so Oranges is wrong and he should understand that, and give an undertaking that he has understood Misplaced Pages rules regarding civility etc. are to be followed, if he declares that he does understand, there is no need to take/ continue action as that would be punitive and administrative action isn't meant to be so. If Oranges gets this message he ought to declare so clearly. ] (]) 09:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:If Oranges were to show clearly that he understands what he did wrong and that he understands the enormous hurt that *any* analogy with Nazi treatment of Jews can cause, and make a convincing statement that he will strive to avoid any such hyperbole in the future (and it's ironic that the issue that triggered his comment was simply that people who adhere to NPOV, RS, Civility, etc policies are the ones who are likely to be taken more seriously in arbitration matters), then I'll be happy to unblock him myself. -- ] (]) 09:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*::That's a fair deal. He ought to take it. ] (]) 09:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:::@YogeshKhandke. There was no provocation. So, why should I retaliate? And who am I supposed to be retaliating at without a provocation? There is no provocation-retaliation or anything like it. Please read my comment in question and subsequent comments. I have now clarified several times that I was not likening anyone to Nazis. Since I made that comment, I should know what I was saying. How can you guys know better than me about what ''I'' am saying? If you want an undertaking, I am happy to give an undertaking that I would not liken any user to a Nazi.] (]) 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC) <small>(Copied from user talk page -- ] (]) 10:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC))</small>
	*::::For me to unblock, I would need to see my additional condition fulfilled that you will strive to avoid further hurtful hyperbole -- ] (]) 10:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*You are falsely claiming that I am likening people Nazis. I am not. I am illustrating the effect of giving paramount power and a hearing to one side of an equation only. Mathsci was saying that some particular people will have more weight (that means it would not matter what people on the other side are saying) at ARB and three out of four are decidedly on one side of the fence. There is nothing wrong with illustrating the dastardly effect of a one-sided hearing.] (]) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC) It is the ''effect'' of a selective and one-sided hearing which ''is'' obnoxious. You are confusing that with some people. "People" and effect of a selective and one-sided hearing are different things.] (]) 09:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC) <small>(copied from user talk page -- ] (]) 09:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC))</small>
	*Personally, I'm less concerned about the whole Nazi/Jew thing—basically, someone needs to be smacked with a trout upon which the text of the ] article has been copied (with attribution, of course!{{=)}})—and more concerned about the troubling practice of ascribing certain viewpoints to other editors. If an editor is editing from a certain POV, and said POV is non-neutral, then you should be able to show the problem with their edits simply by highlighting their non-neutrality. I think there's an important difference between {{xt|Your latest edit seems to push a something-ist viewpoint}} and {{!xt|You are pushing a something-ist viewpoint}}. ''That said'', while behavior like that is the type of stuff that can get you with some nasty ArbCom sanctions, I don't see it as blockable. But, like I said, definitely worthy of a Godwin-engraved trout.''' —&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::There are many, many editors who have labelled a whole side as "editors who take part are entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers," <code>Boing! said Zebedee</code> is one among them, he is involved in this and what right does he have to complain against other about his civility when he ''himself'' doesn't refrain from attacking me and others? He overtly '''vituperated me''' by saying :"'''MrT, let me state this openly and plainly here on Jimbo's talk page - you are one of the <u>Indian/Hindu nationalist POV-warriors</u>'''" even though I never said that I am an Indian or that I adhere to Hindu beliefs? Why should he act as a moral police here?????? (See ]) ]] 11:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I an not "involved" as per ], and my comments on your POV over at Jimbo's page are based on your editing and your general comments in talk pages, which anyone can read, and not on any stated beliefs or opinions - I won't offer diffs here, because this section is not about you -- ] (]) 11:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support block''' until such time as there's an agreement to not use such provocative and inflammatory rhetoric in the future. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 10:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Good block''' Even though I suppose I'm involved because his remarks are directed in part at me, one can't go around dragging Nazis into the picture or attempting to put nationalistic labels on other editors. I cannot see how Boing! is involved since he doesn't edit in this area. Mere admin action does not make someone involved. --] <small>(])</small> 12:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''New comment by OrangesRyellow''' <small>Copied from blocked user's talk page by --] <small>(])</small> 15:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)</small> Looking at ]'s immensely helpful and insightful comment, particularly the ] article, I can see the downside of mentioning "Nazi" even to illustrate a point, even when it is not intended as any kind of PA. Looking into their and some other people's comments, I can also see the benefits of trying to avoid hyperbole and will strive to do so on my own. But I see that you know Sitush personally and have a close involvement with him/her. It seems that you are here only to help Sitush turn these articles into his/her personal fiefdom. As such, I cannot rely on you to interpret "further hurtful hyperbole" in a neutral, balanced fashion and cannot give that undertaking to ''you''. I see that this article sphere is being adminned by a small group of mostly involved admins. That is not how articles spheres are supposed to be adminned. I see this as a failure of Misplaced Pages adminning process. This article sphere is infamous for various problems and I think rather that eds, the problem is due to the failure of adminning process whereby articles are supposed to be adminned by uninvolved admins, rather than a small group of involved admins. If some admin is taking continuous interest in one particular area of articles, they must be having some kind of involvement/interest in the content in that area. That is not respectable adminning and will clearly lead to problems, as indeed it is here. It creates a situation where eds from only one particular orientation will have paramount power on article content and the eds on the other side will get butchered. I do not think this article sphere has any problems that do not exist in other article spheres. Other admins are being kept away by the continuous propaganda that this sphere is problematic and a small band of involved admins continues to occupy "their turf". Thanks and everything.] (]) 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) You block summary that I am likening admins to "Nazis lording it over Jews" is misleading (deliberately?)] (]) 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:Well, whatever you think of me, I wasn't asking for a commitment to me personally or for any personal trust. And I accept that you cannot undertake to avoid "further hurtful hyperbole" according to my judgment, as you cannot be sure how I will judge it. But your general commitment to avoid any further use of Nazis as illustration, and your apparent understanding of Godwin's Law - well, if you're prepared to try to avoid excessive hyperbole as best you can, then I'm happy to take that in good faith, and I shall shortly unblock you.<p>As for my association with Sitush, I can't respond any better than Writ&nbsp;Keeper has in the section below, so I will do no more than refer you to that. <p>The "two sides" editing in this area? I actually see at least three - those pushing a range of pro-India/pro-Hindu/anti-Muslim/anti-Pakistan viewpoints, those pushing a range of pro-Pakistan/pro-Muslim/anti-India/anti-Hindu viewpoints, and those trying to stick to Misplaced Pages's policies of ], ], ], etc (and that admittedly over-broad generalisation doesn't even begin to consider the various caste-wars that have been blighting this project). In my view, Sitush ''et al'' are in that middle area, working hard to build a quality encyclopedia against the POV-pushing of the various extremes.<p>Going forward, it is my intention to continue to act in an admin capacity in this topic area and to support any editor who adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies (and to help protect them from those who try to attack them or otherwise try to prevent their hard work). To that end, I will continue to issue warnings and/or sanctions when I judge it necessary - and my decisions are, of course, always open to review by the community. -- ] (]) 15:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*I have now unblocked OrangesRyellow, as promised above. -- ] (]) 16:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' as long as the national socialists call me a communist and a Jew, the Hindu nationalist editors call me a nazi or Pakistani, the islamophobes call me a Muslim, and the rational skeptics call me a cult apologist then I think I am doing something right.] 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*:Yes, I've seen some of our best editors in this topic area being attacked as both pro-India and and pro-Pakistan, and having been accused of being members of at least half a dozen different warring castes. -- ] (]) 16:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*::<small>By all accounts I am a pro Indian POV pusher and an anti Indian POV pusher, ypu just called me one of the better editors {{smiley}} ] (]) 16:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)</small>
	=== Boing! INVOLVED with Sitush ===
	* ]
	*
	* ] is blocked for some secret reason. ] shows Boing! protecting Sitush.
	* ]
	* the article ] and then gives a go by to Sitush to "]" on it.
	* ] ] for "attempting to harass or personally attacking other users". Alleged attack was "''Mr Sitush is citing some unknown books and writing statements to hurt Rajus community''".
	* ] thrice, each time while the user was involved with Sitush
	* ] ] for personal attacks on Sitush and sockpuppetry.
	* ] because he was "''kinda feeling bad about the trouble Sitush and the others were having, with not enough admins to help!''"
	There are numerous more instances where Boing! and Sitush's involvements can be seen on each other's talk page archives, article talk pages and elsewhere. §§]§§ {]/]} 11:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Do you mean "involved" or ]? What is the point of this? I've even admitted meeting Boing! in person - so what? - ] (]) 12:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:You realize that our ''entire'' job as admins is to protect other editors, right? These all appear to be examples of Boing doing his job. Lowkeyvision, the only case of this where I was personally active, was not blocked for "some secret reason" (and incidentally wasn't even blocked by BsZ); they were blocked for attempting to out another editor (not Sitush), making threats, edit warring, and other various things. And BsZ was the most cursorily-involved admin of the entire case; Qwyrxian, Floq, and myself did far more. If you're trying to cite ''that'' as an example of BsZ "inappropriately" protecting Sitush (though even if he ''was'', it's still irrelevant to the case at hand), you couldn't ''possibly'' be more wrong. ]&nbsp;]] 13:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:: <small> one small nit - we also protect ''articles'' :P (but yea - you are correct) — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 15:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC) </small>
	:::<small> Articles? What are "articles"? ]&nbsp;]] 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)</small>
	::Thank you Writ&nbsp;Keeper, you have put it much better than I could have done. -- ] (]) 15:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Also''' You may want to keep in mind that ] carries a cavet: "In straightforward cases (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Looking at this, even if Boing! were involved which I haven't examined, I likely would've taken the same action.--v/r - ]] 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	** I see Oranges was unblocked already by Boing! himself (per promise to behave), so let's close this before it turns into a mere-venting thread a la the last Darkness Shines / regentspark thread... Dharmadhyaksha could assume more good faith. ] (]) 16:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive-bottom}}
	== ] ==
	Edit warring (violation of ]) after a final warning.
	also raises a doubt about ]. ] (]) 08:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	*See also ]. ] (]) 09:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	**I've blocked, although I might be considered "involved", as having reverted one of its edits which was not ''obvious'' vandalism; however, it's possible the sockpuppet investigation may find "sleepers".
	** Requesting review by a clearly uninvolved admin. — ] ] 12:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	***'''Good block''' (including {{u|Seventeenman}}). Obvious edit warring and subsequent appearance of a ]. ] (]) 15:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	== Legal threat ==
	{{archive top|result=The anonymous user has now been advised of our policy on legal threats. <span class='nounderlines' style="text-decoration:none">]&nbsp;<font color="#888888">]</font></span> 11:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	{{User|109.68.196.123}} has posted a on my talk page, stating that a particular song is infringing their copyright, as if I have any power over the song. Any advice, as I've never had such legal threats posted on my talk page before. ] ☮ ] 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Not sure it's an actual legal threat, honestly. Best guess, based on Google, is that she's<sup></sup> referring to the Secretary-General of the ], a professional association of broadcasters in that region. Assuming she's actually done the promised "informing," I imagine she would just be ignored, since I don't think said association has any sort of authority for handling copyright infringement... Not really quite sure what advice to give you, but simply ignoring her might be the best bet. <span class='nounderlines' style="text-decoration:none">]&nbsp;<font color="#888888">]</font></span> 10:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Thanks J. It came totally out of the blue. My first reaction was like "eh, do I look like Simon Cowell?". If anyone wants to revdel it from my talk page though, then feel free. I'll go back to some serious collaborating work again. Thank you again for the advice. ] ☮ ] 11:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Under what authority (or even requirement) could it be REVDEL'd? (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::]. ]] 11:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::So far as I can tell, she's advising Misplaced Pages that someone outside of Misplaced Pages stole her song... And she's told someone else outside of Misplaced Pages, who isn't an authority, about that. If she pursues this thing on-wiki further or makes an actual legal threat, I'd agree that it shouldn't be overlooked. But, as best as I can tell, she's made no legal threat, so there's nothing to overlook... But maybe I'm missing something? <span class='nounderlines' style="text-decoration:none">]&nbsp;<font color="#888888">]</font></span> 11:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not saying it's not not a legal threat, I'm saying providing advice to simply ignore is not the best. ]] 11:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::So far as I can tell, she's advising a Misplaced Pages editor that she believes someone outside of Misplaced Pages stole her song... And, stay with me here... She's told us that she's told someone else outside of Misplaced Pages about someone outside of Misplaced Pages having stolen her song. If she pursues this thing on-wiki further or makes an actual legal threat, I'd agree that it shouldn't be overlooked. She didn't make a threat against a Misplaced Pages editor, and, again, as best as I can tell, she's made no legal threat at all against anyone, so I'm not sure what there is to overlook... But maybe I'm missing something? <span class='nounderlines' style="text-decoration:none">]&nbsp;<font color="#888888">]</font></span> 11:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	: ] led to my post on the IP talkpage. Not ignored, but also not actionned with a hammer (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 11:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Request for rules explanation (regarding WP:BLP) ==
	Dear colleagues, if I requested at wrong page, please, move my request to the appropriate place, and I would be grateful if you'll notice me about that on my talk page.
	At ruWiki only less than a half year ago the analog of ] was aligned with current vertion of enWiki rule. The part regarding non-article space is precise translate of ]. But administrators don't have experience of rendering/application of this rule in non-article space (it wasn't any single usage of this part of rule). So we have had an issue: is not disclosed by user inwiki? or in other outer source, private information about that user (such as his sex orientation, faith/religion, political stance) is covered by "WP:BLP#Non-article space" or not, and if negative guesses about such not disclosed private information based on nothing is violation of this rule?
	Because rule WP:BPL is applied for much more time at enWiki, can you give me an advice about such situation? Thank you in advance! --] (]) 11:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	: On the English Misplaced Pages, BLP applies ''everywhere'' - usertalk, article drafts, sandboxes, discussion pages ... (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 11:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:: So does at ruWiki (after alignment), but because of experience lack some users says that negative guesses about such not disclosed private user information based on nothing '''is not''' violation of this rule. --] (]) 11:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::While technically a BLP issue, on en.wikipedia, guessing about an editor's religions, sexual orientation etc is generally much more of a ], ] and ] issue. If the guesses are based on 'nothing' which would suggest they are not based on outside information then outing arguably doesn't apply. However it would still be inappropriate to guess about an editor's personal life, even more so if it's really based on nothing. Even if it's based on self disclosed information or other factors, in many cases bringing it up would be inappropriate, particularly if the editor asks someone not to. (Although if not done with malicously or to dismiss the editor's POV it would potentially be okay.)
	:::Also I don't really know what you mean about 'negative guesses'. Do you mean when someone speculates that a person is not Catholic or Muslim even though they say they are? If so, in most cases, ] would say it's inappropriate. If you mean the guesses are wrong, well in most cases, it doesn't matter if the guess is right or wrong, if the guess shouldn't happen then it shouldn't happen and unless the editor wants people to know, they should decline to confirm such information as suggested by an outing guideline.
	:::] (]) 13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	== 194.89.228.106 ==
	{{archive top|status=blocked|This pointless ANI close brought to you by ]&nbsp;]] 14:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	{{user|194.89.228.106}}
	This IP address is constantly writing in languages ''other'' than English on talk pages. I believe that a 24 hour block should be in place, and if that doesn't work, then a permanent block. ]]]
	:Blocked for 48 hours. I think the language is Finnish, and that in itself wouldn't be a real problem if they were asking for help, but the posts appear to be disruptive so I have blocked for that primarily. ]] 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::The posts are signed "Risto Pöllänen Koneteknikko-ohjelmoija Lappeenranta" (Risto Pöllänen Machine Technician Programmer ]) or "Risto Pöllänen koneteknikko - ohjelmoija" (Risto Pöllänen a mechanical engineer - programmer). Some sort of ranting.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 12:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	This is either a professional spammer or someone obsessed with Risto Pöllänen. I have revdel'ed most of this IP's contributions as far back 2012 as purely disruptive material and copyvios of previously published text by Pöllänen: , . ] (]) 15:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:There was another IP or named account recently with a similar obsession with the same name, fyi. —&nbsp;] 04:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	== 146.255.13.111 ==
	{{archive top|status=blocked|Done; for future reference, ] is a better place for these reports. ]&nbsp;]] 13:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	{{user|146.255.13.111 }}<br>
	Hello. It's me again. I've noticed a different user who repeatedly vandalizes ]. His talk page can be seen ] ]]]
	{{archive bottom}}
	== ] ==
	{{hat|Yawn... ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 21:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	{{archive top|status=The trolls|Do not feed them. <3, ]&nbsp;]] 16:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}
	Keep an eye on ], this user is not confirming his edits, and may be disruptive in the future. --] (]) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:??? ] ]] 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::{{ec}}You warned a Misplaced Pages Administrator at 15:54 that his edits arn't "confirmed" (who the hell knows what that even means, please explain) and came here 10 minutes later? You might want to retract this and spend some time figuring out where you went wrong.--v/r - ]] 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:: Sorry, My mistake, I thought all Misplaced Pages admins had to confirm the edits they make. Confirming edits ensures the edits are not made in vain, in violation of WP:AP and other articles relating to the organization. Please messege me to discuss further. --] (]) 16:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::: Um, what do you mean? (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 16:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::What are you talking about? ] has nothing to do with confirming anything. Made in vain? Not trying to be rude, but is there a language barrier here by chance?--v/r - ]] 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::He's an "American writer" according to his user page, so unlikely. Has the account been compromised? ]] 16:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::He just created the account so I can't see how it'd be compromised. I saw you blocked it, did someone find a sock?--v/r - ]] 16:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	'''C L O S I N G. O F. T H E. D I S C U S S I O N.''' --] (]) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:{{ping|Toothache from Asidiciale}}, you really need to clarify what you are trying to say here, and you really need to do it ASAP. ]] 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I thought he was saying people had to get consensus before editing, but now I have no ideas. ] (]) 16:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} Guys, I've just clicked when I saw the account's first edit was a lengthy bio to their user page, combined with the trolling of Admins/noticeboards - it's almost definitely a sock of {{user|Technoquat}}, CU will confirm. Blocked. ]] 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	{{hab}}
			This week-old account has a talk page filled with warnings (mostly deleted). Some of the warnings include:
	== 75.70.142.23 ==
			* ] warning about using AI chatbot.
			* Me warning .
			Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like:
	{{user links|75.70.142.23}} has been removing maintenance templates ] ] that posting maintenance templates is somehow a discriminatory act representing racism, or something. Fair warning, I before, to no avail. User also on ] for no apparent reason. Efforts to discuss on at ] have been unsuccessful. <font face="copperplate gothic light">] (])</font> 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			*.
			*.
			*.
			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)
	:I have blocked the IP for a week. ] (]) 17:57, 24 June 2013 (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 <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)
			== System gaming by NandivadaHungama ==
	== ] ==
			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)
	{{user links|Bmotbmot}} is adding making a lot of inappropriate edits (some in Chinese) and is creating new non-notable articles, some of which are complete gibberish (see ]). User is refusing to open dialogue with anyone. --] (]) 19:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			:{{done}}.--] (]) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Edits appear to be intended to be helpful; but the issue is a clear lack of English understanding and I doubt the editor is aware of anything. It looks like this has been run through a translator... the intention may be good, but the result is bad. ] (]) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support block until uses Talk page to communicate''' - it's unfortunate, but he's been left repeated messages in English and Chinese and must be aware of the orange bar appearing each time. The disruption to existing articles generates significant hassle in fixing, and addition of non-notable surname stubs (no Baidu article, let alone zh.wp article, not even in the appendices to the 504-name list of "Hundred Names") are just heading to AfD anyway. If he/she would communicate, in any language, then unblock. ] (]) 02:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Support per {{replyto|In ictu oculi}}''' He ought to have gotten at least 15 notifications, and refuses to even acknowledge other editors' existence. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;<span name="TortoiseWrath">]]</span> 03:06, 25 June 2013 (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.
	Needs to be semiprotected two hours ago. ]&nbsp;<sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 21:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Did you post a request at ]? <font face="Segoe script">]]</font> 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes. My experience is that any admins online pay more attention to this page, though. Reports at multiple noticeboards never hurt anybody. :) ]&nbsp;<sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Well, it's sourced now; never mind. ]&nbsp;<sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 22:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
			, ] 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 ].
	== Possible 3RR vio by Djapa84 ==
			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.
	] seems to have violated ] at . Could an admin please either admonish Djapa84 and/or issue a block if required? Thanks. --] (]) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (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.
	:I believe my reinsertion of a POV tag was reasonable as three other editors had joined me in questioning the bias of the file in question and a discussion of the issue was developing. The two editors arguing against the four of us kept removing the tag which I think is in itself disruptive editing. If in this argument about whether open discussion of the issue is acceptable I have inadvertently violated ] then I apologise for that and will avoid doing so in the future. As a result of the disruptive editing I have called for an RFC on the issue and in future I will do that earlier rather than falling for the trap of revert warring against a tag team.] (]) 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
			* 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",
	::AFAIK - Removing a POV tag shouldn't be done by anyone involved with the article. It seems you've both got a ] on the issue and need to take it to ]. ] - you do realize that you also engaged in the edit war taking it as far as you have. You're both guilty here. I'm not so sure a block would be any more helpful than full protecting the article at the last stable version and forcing a discussion on the talk page would be more beneficial. <font face="Segoe script">]]</font> 00:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I note the reinsertion of the tag by an account with only three previous edits. In as many minutes. -] (]) 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: Mind the ] Pete. ] (]) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::If you want to accuse me of sock puppetry then do it directly ]. Don't make snide allegations without justification - that is defamation. Launch an investigation. It will not bring anything up. You are the first to complain when someone else does not follow policy and there is a policy on sock puppet investigations.] (]) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, I'll do it directly. You've got form in this area and there's a whole bunch of similar accounts that all talk like you do and share your political views. --] (]) 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::]... o_O <font face="Segoe script">]]</font> 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::You miss my point Dusti. I do not deny that the edits of "Hard Men" are dubious, that is as given. However there are procedures and IP checks which can be done to investigate such things and it is not acceptable to ignore those procedures and throw wild accusations around, especialy making things up like "you have got form". That is nonsense and while investigating the issue is warranted, defamation is not. I have invited Pete to do things properly '''because I have nothing to fear''' ducks or no ducks.] (]) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I've filed a second sockpuppet investigation, in line with procedures, as per your request. IPs are easy enough to get around, but behaviour stands out. --] (]) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	Apologies for all errors on my part, I shall re-educate myself on POV-tagging policy. I think the file page now needs to be briefly locked as the edit war is continuing. --] (]) 01:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	<br>
			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
	] I have asked you to put up or shut up. Do not make baseless allegations like "You've got form in this area". That is a lie. My editing history is not perfect, but I have never been accused of sock puppetry. Any more defamation from you without showing evidence and I will lodge a complaint. Enough now.] (]) 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Previous sockpuppet report The ] behaviour is also repeated. Quit it, please. --] (]) 01:16, 25 June 2013 (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.
	::<s>I'm pretty sure that unless the editor says it's okay - you just ] an editor - and personal attacks will not be tolerated Djapa - regardless of accusations</s>. And creating new accounts to continue an edit war is sock puppetry and I'm pretty sure you'll be blocked soon enough. <font face="Segoe script">]]</font> 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I am sorry, but I do not follow. Who am I supposed to have outed and how?] (]) 01:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::OK, I had forgotten that you had accused me before. I was not guilty then and I am not guilty now. I have had one account since I first joined in early 2011 and have never created another. Not everyone who disagrees with conservative rhetoric is a sock-puppet.] (]) 01:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::], I'm going to assume you forgot about ], so I'm not even going to mention your above comment. I'm going to walk you through how experienced editors and even ] spot a sockpuppet. First, a new editor who makes a ] towards a page (where an obvious newbie wouldn't). We then watch and wait for the ] ] stuff. Familiarize yourself with ], and if you have questions about how to be ] and not ], come back to us.
	OK Dusti, first I am aware of the policy ] but fail to see how I can be accused of maintaining an attack page? I have asked Pete to justify his accusation by going through the proper procedures with checkuser etc. as I have done nothing wrong, but he continues to accuse me of having 'form'. I was accused back in November 2011 and was not found guilty then. This means I do not have 'form' as that would require guilt last time. Anyone can accuse anyone they want, but that does not imply guilt without conviction.
	Secondly you have accused me of outing someone. I have said nothing about any editor's private life '''because I know nothing about any other editor's private life''' so how can I be guilty of outing anyone? If you are talking about using Pete's name instead of his username, it is in his tagline so he has outed himself. You still have not pointed out how you consider me to have outed anyone, and since I have stated twice now that I do not understand your accusation it would be civil to explain.] (]) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	:It actually looks like I may have made a mistake. In looking at your edit, I saw that you used his (what I'm presuming to be) real name - which would have been an "outing" - however, he's done so himself. I'll strike that bit. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "attack page" - however, I do know that using terms such as "put up or shut up", "conservative rhetoric", etc etc etc. is attacking someone and being childish. Both of you go your separate ways and stop looking for a babysitter. <font face="Segoe script">]]</font> 02:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
	::If that's all it was - using my name "Pete", that's fine. However this user has previously - and no, I'm not going to provide links here - made carefully-worded allegations linking me to all sorts of identifiable personal details. The intent to go against the spirit if not the letter of the wikilaw was obvious, and I'm seeing the same behaviour here with a request for IP checks. Anyone can find a proxy service. --] (]) 02:23, 25 June 2013 (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)
	== Attempted outing of Edward Snowden ==
			: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! :-(
	Despite warnings that the discussion may be problematic wrt ], a high profile admin is trying to find which Misplaced Pages users may have been accounts of ] ]. Connecting the real life identity of a person to account names used on Misplaced Pages is not allowed (unless the person has made the connection on Misplaced Pages): "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name," is the start of ]. The editor started with " It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Misplaced Pages - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?" and continued with posting usernames used by Snowden on other, unrelated forums. The information is not needed for any admin- or office-reasons, the attempted outing is done because "I'm just curious".
			:{{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)
			== Disruptive editor won't stop ==
	Any action I would take against this section on his user talk page would be instantly reverted as trolling anyway, so perhaps someone else can take a look and remove the offending section? Speculation on which accounts may be used by named (notable) persons, for the sake of curiosity, have no place on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{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">—&nbsp;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)
	:Not that I'm criticising you, but I'm wondering why you neglected to mention that the "high profile admin" was in fact Jimbo? — '''''] ]''''' 10:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
			::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. ] (] &#124; ]) 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)

---

Latest revision as of 03:36, 24 January 2025

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

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

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Noticeboard archives

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

• Portuguese Newfoundland on WP:PROFRINGE and WP:OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me (DragonofBatley)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are good points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PamD 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s)

Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus.

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

Discussion

• I think I would be happier if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

Diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.

These edits were suggested by the following user:

• User:Whoop whoop pull up

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

Found another bad date in another article:

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

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

Found another bad date in another article:

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

Suggested by user:

• User:Abductive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-WP:Bot policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Both should take reponsibility"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Not a news article.

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

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

  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)

User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response and apology from PEPSI697

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-neutral paid editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BOOMERANG back to Andrewjlockley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Wikimedian in Residence apply?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for earth system governance" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be extended to future employers too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Femke. jp×g🗯️ 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support and will withdraw my proposal above. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Naniwoofg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that I believe the IP editor above mistakenly posted in this section instead of at the section raised concerning their edits.-- Ponyo 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal - short duration block for Unas964

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

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

Your proposal only enhances the pro-Russian stance and if enforced will serve as evidence that the Ukrainian (and according to the International Law) point of view is censored on Misplaced Pages, also making a precedent against Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT. This is harmful for the entire community that might thus be considered as anti-Ukrainian in general. Unas964 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

User talk page access, Wiseguy012

I'm just going to close this. If Wiseguy012 returns and continues to rant or issues personal attacks, please return to ANI. Liz 04:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Blocked user WiseGuy012 is using their talk page only for the purpose of continuing the rant that they got blocked for at Talk:Tagine and that they continued there as a sock account, Friend0113, which is also now blocked. See . Revoke user talk page access? Largoplazo (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Largoplazo,

There is no User:WiseGuy012 account. Did you mean someone else? Liz 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiseguy012, lower g. CMD (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks CMD. They are just ranting to themselves, not attacking anyone. An admin might come by, review this complaint and remove TPA but I don't find it egregious enough to act. Typically blocked editors can act like this right after they discover they've been blocked but then they move on and leave Misplaced Pages or they start creating sockpuppets and that's a bigger problem than a talk page rant. Too soon to tell right now. But it doesn't seem ANI-worthy to me. Liz 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The things some people decide to get mad about.... What they posted on the talk page was a copyright violation in its entirety, so that's gone, and I've warned them for that and let them know further disruption of any kind will cause them to lose talk page access. Beeblebrox 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. Largoplazo (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Still misuse of talk page for spamming. -Lemonaka 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That content was posted hours ago and was similar to what was reported here in the complaint. Liz 08:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Caste-based disruption

HistorianAlferedo has engaged in contentious WP:BATTLEGROUND style editing in the WP:CASTE related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in Rajput POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as WP:RAJ (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:

• , , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
• : clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
• , , , , : POV caste-based insertions
• , : POV caste-based removals

This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a WP:CASTE t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking , ). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: . Gotitbro (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Gotitbro, you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. Liz 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually i was only editing and adding new information along with genuine citations. I had no motive for any sort of vandalism or anything else. Based on the knowledge about various topics of Indian history i was just trying to contribute in a positive way. Moreover some of the allegations by user Gotitbro are totally irrelevant, i’m not an indian but interested in the topics related to Indian history. New editors should be supported by the old ones and not demotivated with false allegations. Alright, if the old editors don’t want the new ones to contribute to[REDACTED] even in a good way then i’ll definitely even delete my account from wikipedia. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

HistorianAlferedo, I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. Liz 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay @Liz. Please have a look at pages: Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq and Firuz Shah Tughlaq, I added relevant information along with scholarly work sources but user:@Gotitbro just reverted all the changes without even looking at the correct citations. That’s why i thought now i won’t edit and visit[REDACTED] as few users here just try to show off their ranks, there are good wikipedians and administrators too but a few of them are doing this with the new contributors. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by User:SerChevalerie

I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with SerChevalerie, I had to take this to ANI.

To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of.

Both me and SerChevalerie were part of this WhatsApp group of Wikipedians from Goa. Having known each other online for over two years, and we shared the same native state. The problems arrived when he got back active on Misplaced Pages after a break of roughly 4 years and went on serious stalking my edits, the page I contributed, but mainly the pages that I created. As am In WP:Inclusionist and I love creating articles, but this was something he went overly critical on.

From June to August 2024, most of the edits SerChevalerie made were pertaining to the articles that I significantly worked on or created. During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS. It was until I finally took the decision to take it to WP:3O we reached a consensus after several days of discussion.

Over the course of some 30 articles that I created from June to August 2024, SerChevalerie has made edits which often times were seen as annoying and major stalking behaviour. He also likes to stay at the "top of the order" constantly as you can on articles such as Julião Menezes as per his latest "copyedit". During this period of two months almost entirely of his edits he has made were only pertaining to my articles.

When I had nominated his article Goa Revolution Day for SD, he then tried to solicit and I felt harrassed after he took his arguments to WhatsApp. Even after saying I don't want to discus this off-wiki he forced it upon me by confronting me in a group of 200-250 Wikipedians and having his arguments posted there. This is the same whatsapp group we were part of. And I have the relevant evidence with me.

SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly Gerald Pereira and a suspected COI paid editing on article like Subodh Kerkar. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see

He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here (Redacted). I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.

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

I still feel constantly watched by this editor everytime I am on Misplaced Pages. I want to propose to the community for a block on SerChevalerie or having placed WP:Sanctions on articles that I create so that he stops this behaviour. He also knows my real name and I don't want to get WP:Outed or doxxed by him as we both are from Goa, India. I'm afraid he might just get my residence address and does any harm. I just want to get rid of this issue and move on. Rejoy(talk) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented.

"During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS."

In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.

If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided WP:HOUNDING. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.

I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm, but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. Mlkj (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. -Lemonaka 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits

Indeffed by Canterbury Tail EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that TTYDDoopliss was found to be the sockpuppet of an editor many of us became familiar with last spring on ANI and the Teahouse. Liz 04:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Indefinite block

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

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

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

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

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

diff

diff

diff

diff

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

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

More specifically this line:

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

diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and you responded

Which is labeling the party as it.

Which isn't how NPOV editing works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literally in this ANI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not claimed that I prefer news sources over academic sources, not that news sources override academic consensus. You are asking me to defend a position I haven't actually taken i.e. you are strawmanning. Cortador (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @Springee, who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. Springee (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Warrenmck, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I can back away Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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:

• "In 1993, due to the occupation of their village by Armenian forces, her family temporarily settled in Qaradamirchi village of the Barda District."

• "One of Khalil Rza's grandfathers, Rustem beg, was martyred during the Armenian Dashnak-led ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan in 1918"

• "The restoration of our national army, alphabet, state borders that existed until April 28, 1920, economic and political independence, and the cessation of the despicable Dashnaktsutyun aggression".

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

Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Given them a final warning on the matter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Consider revoking EC status on Scherbatsky when he reaches 501 total edits. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: "On the day of the performance, there was a large audience, most of whom were Armenians". It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again.

This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were alerted is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't competent enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Caribbean Hindustani

• Caribbean Hindustani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is probably not the appropriate page, but I couldn't find a better one. If an admin may have a look at the version history of the Caribbean Hindustani article - there's two quite new editors battling out a dispute since December. Maybe some administrative guidance would help them. Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. Tarlby 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This: , may or may not be helpful. I'd also add that I can't force someone to discuss something on the talkpage: Hermes Express (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That would make sense if you'd tried discussing on the talk page, but you didn't head there until Tarbly asked you to. You can't force someone to discuss something but you can try discussing which you haven't done until now. Expecting the other party to start a discussion is rarely good editor behaviour especially when you are edit warring. Instead it's like a lame kids 'they started it' defence. The only way you can prove an editor refuses to discuss on the talk page is by trying otherwise you can both be counted as refusing to discuss. To be clear except the first sentence, this applies to both of you. Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written.

He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information.

I had talk with the user and explained several times in the edit and on talk page as well. I have explained everything which I added with source unlike him. Adrikshit (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Danny5784

Danny5784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not seem to have the maturity and judgement to be a productive editor. Despite a litany of talk page warnings and efforts by multiple editors to explain things to them, they are continuing to create unneeded pages. Of the 18 articles they've created, 9 have been redirected (mostly at AfD), 2 deleted, and 4 currently have unanimous delete/redirect consensus at AfD. Three of their most recent creations are particularly noteworthy:

• After Draft:New Jersey Transit 6539-6549 was declined by Stuartyeates, and I warned them that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 created it anyway.
• Danny5784 created NJ Transit bus garages with poor sourcing, much of it from a user-generated wiki. After Djflem wrangled it into a useful list, Danny5784 created both New Jersey Transit bus garages and NJ Transit Bus Garage Fleet/Routes apparently as content forks.

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

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

Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.

Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than high school so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. Toyota683 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear  Confirmed result.-- Ponyo 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem, ever, with unarchiving, The Bushranger. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. Liz 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Clerical note that this user is not the similarly named DannyS712. jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article

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

Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism and is not funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a very low tolerance for trolls, especially in contentious topics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also worth noting that there are jokes, and then there are "oh hell no" situations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you really have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see WP:HTVC. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't you have just used inspect element? Doombruddah (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You're taking a very long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. Doombruddah (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back» and there are no consequences? XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their rope. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. Departure– (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. Springee (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly reverting edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Sokoreq,

First WP:ANEW is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. Liz 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. Liz 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry@Liz actually before this, i went on your talk page to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided edit warnings. Sokoreq (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's your action, not theirs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They are the one who started removing/reverting edits repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on talk page to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are doing again. Plese see SIF edit history. Sokoreq (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". WP:3RR is a bright line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. Liz 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

They edit in group, while i started a discussion first but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on talk page but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. Sokoreq (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the associated talk page for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? Sokoreq (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Science_of_Identity_Foundation is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG sanction is appropriate here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure they understand? Moxy🍁 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie Yeh, I went to the COI noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my talk page. What do you want to prove through this? Sokoreq (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with User:Hipal from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at WP:ANEW. Liz 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. Liz 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I read over Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Science of Identity Foundation discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. Liz 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on WP:ANEW. Thanks again Sokoreq (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know what you're up to, but from the beginning, I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks Sokoreq (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hipal, can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? Liz 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if they are using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, their own behavior. --Hipal (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Trolling at Talk:Denali

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

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

---

• 2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

WP:AIV? Tarlby 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected now, thanks User:Isabelle Belato Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. Isabelle Belato 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Isabelle Belato and Acroterion: Needs talk page access yanked too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Isabelle Belato 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn

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

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

---

• Conor Benn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- Ponyo 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I've restored it to the pre-socking version and Daniel Case has semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Banned Blocked IP

Banned Blocked IP Sock

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

EDIT: The IP is now banned blocked, with the original IP's ban block extended by another three months. Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKNOTBAN - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction on my wording. Redacted II (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks

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

Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. Beeblebrox 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: 'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA). Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Per our own internal classification (e.g. WP:GGTF/WP:GENSEX) it is formally a "contentious topic", and the article feminism is in the {{political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. jp×g🗯️ 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:

• "The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
• "Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
• "When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."

I am not really sure why these sentences would, prima facie, constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:

... that the retelling of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the feminist perspective?

From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.

I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (Special:Permalink/1271035842#User:TTYDDoopliss_and_gender-related_edits), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. jp×g🗯️ 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Amended, thanks. jp×g🗯️ 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what Cambridge's definition says:

to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:

I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.

Dictionary.com says:

Follow successfully, locate, as in I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.”

Collins says:

If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.

She had spent years trying to track down her parents.

I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.

The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.

There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.

Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. jp×g🗯️ 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page and And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page. Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says "Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there." on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment. This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: commute block to topic ban

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

• Support as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Lengthen the block if you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to Retelling (1, 2). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:

  • : unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
  • Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in Murder of George Floyd.
  • : Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
  • User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020#Do you even READ my comments anymore, or do you just click "revert" out of habit? shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
    • Similarly on other talk pages Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?
  • Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive 3#Softening of exceedingly authoritative language and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
  • Tried to make the article Millennium Challenge 2002 more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all. 1.

  Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @JPxG's concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least WP:GENSEX broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Reinstate indef

A discussion is needed on this to prevent WP:WHEEL from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.

• Support as proposer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose reinstating indef, support gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Voorts and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by GreenLipstickLesbian. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support given the history documented by GreenLipstickLesbian, the revdel'd content described above, and the obvious foot-dragging in the appeal. If they are let back in then it should at least be an AP2 / Gensex topic ban given the user's inability to control their strong emotions in that topic area; but the previous outing coupled with the "track down" comment in particular crosses the line. --Aquillion (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

Anonymous8206

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

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

---

• Anonymous8206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

WP:BLP policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: Special:PermanentLink/1268615581#Liddle Hart. I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to Talk:Donald Trump in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

(non-admin closure) Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating WP:HID. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

As the title suggests, this includes:

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

Making personal attacks such as "Enough of explaining r@cist Brits what to do", "you're probably an ignorant British man", and has tried to remove relevant content about 4 times now.

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

Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See WP:COMMUNICATE.

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

Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't currently editing it appears. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a WP:FORUM attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. Borgenland (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. Capitals00 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks

2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) I saw an IP making an unmistakable personal attack on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and all of their edits are like this, it seems. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. Departure– (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) E_F 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Incivility and edit-warring

After being explained by Wiznut at 1.00am UTC today about how even discussing through edit summaries while reverting in good faith is edit warring, Thelittlefaerie has opened a discussion on the article talk and stopped edit warring. Additionally, they are now aware that making personal attacks is prohibited and have issued an apology to editors they attacked while in a heated argument. As a talk discussion is now open for content issues, and this user now seems aware about how we resolve disputes here on Misplaced Pages, I am closing this section with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur. I think a little WP:ROPE is justified here as they are a new editor, who now knows about the dispute resolution processes and is now engaging collaboratively. MolecularPilot 06:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is concerning user User:Thelittlefaerie (talk and contributions). A new user, who initially made several good faith mistakes related to providing sources and not using original research. However, he also decided that the Afghanistan population at List of countries and dependencies by population needed to be correct. A history of the edit war, which involved Thelittlefaerie vs three other editors (including me):

Users involved:

Thelittlefaerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wizmut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MIHAIL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dates:

20 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie changes the figure without a source, which is reverted by me. For this article, unsourced changes happen regularly, so I did not take the effort to give Thelittlefaire much explanation.

21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.

22 Dec 2024 : I revert, mentioning the selection criteria for this article's sources. Thelittlefaerie reverts, and also reverts an unrelated change. I leave it, and instead start a topic on the talk page.

26 Dec 2024 : User User:MIHAIL (talk and contributions) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)

3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase "This is your final straw."

7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: "why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism". In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates.

16 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie again, this time including in his edit summary "And now you are acting like a complete fool. I am DONE WITH THIS. You are just a terrible person." and also "Either stop or I'll keep making edits." This edit was particularly troublesome, not only for the incivility, but because he reverted over a dozen unrelated edits. This was reverted by User:Magnolia677.

17 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie says he "could not reach out to you Magnolia677" (I can see no such attempt) and reverts again. This again reverts over a dozen unrelated changes, so I do the revert this time, and also try to warn Thelittlefaerie on the talk page and on his user page.

22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: "I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."

I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.

Wizmut (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to WP:LTA-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. MolecularPilot 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It does seem like this could have gone to WP:ANEW. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from User:Thelittlefaerie. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. Liz 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thelittlefaerie speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this.

I think if you can apologise and agree to not make personal attacks against other editors again, and refrain from edit warring (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek dispute resolution.

Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! MolecularPilot 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M.

Thank you,

Thelittlefaerie Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Update: Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) MolecularPilot 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Swagsgod

(non-admin closure) Swagsgod blocked and TPA revoked. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can User:Swagsgod please be swiftly blocked? They are constantly creating inappropriate pages. They are listed at AIV, but the stream of new pages continues quite rapidly. Fram (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking into it. jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:

• Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God
• Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests

etc. jp×g🗯️ 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by @Fram:). Let me know if I have missed anything. jp×g🗯️ 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Gone. —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? Meters (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source

The following IP Editor(s) have been making continuous changes to the flags on the Islamic State of Iraq page without any sources to backup their claims, when the changes are reverted, they just go back and revert the revert and still provide no source, thus causing what I believe to be an unnecessary disruption.

2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:d12c:6979:d06c:9d74, 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:ec:5fe:fa19:caa0, 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:7c47:7be6:c3c9:7078 and 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:6d71:4017:3ed8:b70d Catalyst GP real (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

142.190.62.131

Long-term abuse possible proxy vandal operating out of Alabama, vandalism-only account. Almost all edits to their talk page before the three-year-block are warnings or include Huggle tags(see tak page hist). The reason I'm reporting this user on ANI instead of AVI, is because of the user continuing to vandalize Misplaced Pages after blocks that sometimes took years to expire, one time even two years, which might fall under chronic intractable behavioral problems. This user is currently blocked for 3 years after I already reported them at AVI, but will likely continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages again after the block. This user has been vandalizing Misplaced Pages since 2020. The IP is from Alabama and belongs to a company named "Southern Light, LLC". I don't know if the user is actually operating out of Alabama, or if they are using a proxy. I've seen multiple IPs from the "142" range that are vandalizing Misplaced Pages or contributing unconstructively, although I don't think they have much to do with this user. Their edits to the page "Athenian democracy" didn't get reverted for over two years. Three of their edits got deleted, including their first edit. RaschenTechner (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses generally do not correlate to a person. In most cases, they are randomly assigned to a customer on that ISP, then cycle around to another random customer. If there's a long history of petty vandalism, it could potentially be a school, library, public transportation, or some other shared IP with lots of users. Every so often, I think, "I should write an intro to IP addresses", but the best I've come up with yet is User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors. And while there are peer-to-peer proxies and VPNs all over the place, there's generally little reason for normal users get worried about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles

This situation looks resolved. Liz 04:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP range user (2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) has been adding contentious or poorly sourced material to a variety of articles related to Canadian politics (including BLPs). I haven't been able to warn them as the IP changes frequently but did let them know here why I reverted their additions. They've also been causing problems in other articles with unreliable sources or poor information eg 1 eg 2.

The user does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia productively. Citing (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Tried notifying them here for what that's worth. Citing (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Could I please get some help here? IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using 2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is  Confirmed block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been blocked twice previously for disruption.-- Ponyo 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much, User:Ponyo. And this IP as well? Paul Erik 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Paul Erik, I got that /64 as well.-- Ponyo 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Citing (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive user

Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from the help desk. Courtesy link: Opolito (talk · contribs), filed by Shaggydan (talk · contribs), moved by Departure– (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User Opolito is flagging users, including me, for vandalism when there is no vandalism. Who is able to restrict his account and remove his warnings and how do I bring this to their attention? Shaggydan (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a matter for the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. Departure– (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shaggydan. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for this edit of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shaggydan: - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as this will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at this edit, I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. TiggerJay (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shaggydan: Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? Shaggydan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with actual personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.

I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many characters are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.

Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.

He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.

I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."

Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."

29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.

On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"

These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.

I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. Shaggydan (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information

• 93.204.189.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those three accounts all appear to be the same person, who is doing mass removal of information with minimal to no notes. I have reverted some of their edits on Gerald Butler (writer) (because they removed information that I added and sourced myself), but user continuously reverts. After quickly going through their other edits, it doesn't appear they are making any constructive edits. I'd love some help dealing with this issue.--Bricks&Wood talk 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Their edits at Gerard Butler don't look unreasonable to me, trimming information that, while sourced, is tangential at best to the subject of the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP

Edit summary revdel'd and GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs) blocked for one week for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apologies if this is the incorrect location, is a BLP violation and may need redacting. Flat Out (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:REVDELREQUEST, you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a note of that. Flat Out (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

revoke TPA for User:Xpander1?

Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I guess I shouldn't since it is me that they are deliberately pestering with nuisance pings after being asked repeatedly to stop. I know I could have muted them, and I now have, but I shouldn't have had to, they should just stop acting so obnoxious. Beeblebrox 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations

Dear admins, I am reaching out to request a review of the recent deletions of articles related to the Astana platform. While I have already contacted the administrator responsible for the deletions, I believe a third-party review would ensure fairness and transparency. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. I understand that concerns have been raised about alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts, particularly regarding my interest in Randa Kassis and related topics. I would like to clarify that my interest in Randa Kassis stems from her international prominence, especially during the period when her meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and her role in the Astana platform gained significant media coverage. This explains the connection between my edits to her page and other related articles. My contributions have focused solely on adding reliable references and improving information with a neutral tone, as reflected in the edit history. Additionally, the articles in question were edited by multiple users and administrators over time, highlighting a shared interest in Syria’s geopolitical significance and its key figures. The collaborative nature of these edits reflects diverse perspectives rather than coordinated efforts. If there is concrete evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct, I kindly request that it be presented. I fully support Misplaced Pages’s principles of transparency and remain committed to addressing any legitimate concerns.

It is also worth noting that the articles about Randa Kassis and Fabien Baussart include critical and controversial perspectives. At no point have I attempted to remove or alter critical content or promote a specific narrative. My sole intent has been to ensure accuracy and neutrality.

I am happy to cooperate with all of you. Thanks for your time. Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrivain Wagner (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review is what you are looking for. This noticeboard doesn't handle reviews of recent deletions of articles. And I'm not seeing any reports about "alleged undisclosed paid editing (UPE) and connections between accounts", on this noticeboard or on your talk page, so it's unclear how we can help you in that regard. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify what this is about, please see Astana Platform - 21:22 UTC 5 Jan 2025 version here, and 14:00 UTC 22 Jan 2025 version here. My apologies for not using {{Template:Diff}}, it's a bit too maths-y for me. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

For added context, see this AARV thread, from where the user was sent here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion, but have no recollection of any involvement. It's not a topic which interests me. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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 of 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)

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:

Pitman Shorthand Removal diff

Origami Removal diff

Knitting Removal diff

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)

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)

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.

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)

User:Adillia

Aidillia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on File:Love Scout poster.png but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png and File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, where the file are uploaded in WP:GOODFAITH and abided WP:IMAGERES but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did bad faith.

Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. Aidillia 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on File:Love Your Enemy poster.png. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) Aidillia 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as a character poster by Korean reliable sources. You know that we rely more on independent secondary reliable sources rather on official website or social media accounts as they are primary sources, so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on File:Love Scout poster.png. You will just engaged in WP:EDITWAR. I've also seen you revert on File:Light Shop poster.png; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. Aidillia 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at Close Your Eyes (group). Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:D.18th

Withdrawn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

D.18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore WP:GOODFAITH. Aidillia 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism. Aidillia 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aidilla: You have failed to notify D.18th (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in this not ending well for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as Comment. Liz 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Aidillia 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

* 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)

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 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 Study Group poster.png but 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!

• File:Love Your Enemy poster.png
• File:Love Scout poster.png

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)

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 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)

• 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

Can someone please revoke TPA? Thanks. C F A 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

• Thanks for clarification!.
• Thanks for your clarification!.
• Got it.Thanks for clarification!.

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.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: 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.

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)

System gaming by NandivadaHungama

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)

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)

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)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards