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

Revision as of 13:00, 17 March 2015 view sourceJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits →Collect: close← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:37, 24 January 2025 view source Simonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,240 edits →Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__		{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
			{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|maxarchivesize = 700K		|maxarchivesize =800K
	|counter = 877		|counter = 1177
	|algo = old(36h)		|algo = old(72h)
			|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
	|key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
			|headerlevel=2
	}}
			}}
			{{stack end}}
	<!--		<!--
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
	|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
	|format=%%i
	|age=36
	|index=no
	|numberstart=826
	|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
	|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.
	Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
	----------------------------------------------------------
	Do not place links in the section headers.
	(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
	----------------------------------------------------------
	Entries may be refactored based on the above.
	---------------------------------------------------------- -->
			== ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles ==
	== 2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates ==
			{{atop|This section has been stale for a few days and was at the top of ANI (i.e. the oldest un-archived post) and about to be automatically archived without action. I find consensus for an indefinite (not infinite, you may appeal your restriction at ] if you can create some articles through AfC that demonstrate a better understanding of the policies) ban from creating articles in main space against ]. They may only create articles using the AfC process. This editing restriction will be logged at ]. ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			] has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of ] and ] seems to be lacking substantially.
			* was deleted for ]
	The ] is ] to the ], and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.
			* on ] and ] grounds
	Interested parties are invited to review the ] containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to {{NoSpamEmail|arbcom-en-c|lists.wikimedia.org}}.
			* on ] and ]
	Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
			*They've been warned about ] and .
	The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.
			*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
	For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
	:''']'''
			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.
	== Personal attacks alleged ==
	::''(Retitled to "Personal attacks alleged" from non-neutral "Personal attacks by QuackGuru". See ]. --]]] 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC))''
	QuackGuru has engaged in personal attacks. In violation of AGF and misrepresenting me and my edits. Contrary to warning he continues to post links to a closed WP:AN/I section that was closed no consensus in an effort to discredit me. The attacks are not on point, but personal, not directed to the topic, but me. This has no place on the talk pages of WP articles.
	*His latest including a link to the closed WP:AN/I section in the edits comments.<strike> </strike>
	*Previous linking of the section closed WP:AN/I in edit comments.
	*He even uses a user page to hold the information so he can easily paste it.
	*He has placed the link in comments on an admin's user page, and the edit is a pure attack.
	*He has placed the link in the comments and the attack on a request for page protection that I made.
			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)
	Edit March 10, 2015 (added 5 more diff's below)
	*So not to get lost in the long discussion. QuackGuru on this page made another more serious harassing post towards me on my disability . This is an ongoing pattern.
	*<u>Another link to the section in comments to discredit me
	*Another link to the section in comments to discredit me
	*Another link to the section in comments to discredit me
	*Links to the old AN/I section and misrepresents the nature of it to discredit me. </u> (note: 4 difs added by {{u|AlbinoFerret}} in and today ] (]) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (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)
	This has to stop, There are serious violations of ] including misrepresenting, AGF, and making the discussion on the other editor and not the topic and ] for the persistently trying to discredit me over old and resolved WP:AN/I sections. Asking him to stop has done no good. Smearing another editor should not be done. ] 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			::I checked this ] which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted." But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted. The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? ] (]) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"
			::Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. ] 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry ] (] · ] · ]) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. ] (]) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::@QuackGuru, thanks for pointing out I had the wrong diff. I have struck out the wrong one and placed the correct one. ] 03:37, 5 March 2015 (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)
	*This comment "" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban ] would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
	**Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for ? ] (] · ] · ]) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:*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.
	:::That discussion already happened in the WP:AN/I QuackGuru keeps linking to and is now 5 months old. It is a content disagreement, and this focus of this section isnt on content, but the persistent personal attacks by QuackGuru. The noticeboard is only one place out of many, and it was the noticeboard for page protection, not a place to level personal attacks or discuss editors. ] 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:*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.
	*Can someone please point out the personal attack? I do not immediately see the insult being directed. I think we are nearing 150 days of daily edit warring at this article so I recognize the tension. ]] 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:*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.
	::I'd agree BR, I don't see ] here. I do see unhelpful behaviour, not unidirectionally, including ], ] and ]. I fully understand AF's furstration at QG's massive undiscussed edits on a controversial topic, usually I find with reasonable content in them but lots of dross that doesn't add to the article as well. I also understand QG's frustration with AF undoing what is a large amount of work. But QG is persistently trying to discredit AF over old and resolved ANI threads. I don't know what can be done to reduce the tension at the e-cigarette family of Articles but I think some form of sanctions need to be handed out to those making it harder for productive collaboration to happen. ] (]) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:*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.
	:::I think sanctions might be the way to go here since there are multiple problem editors. Many editors left and unwatched the article as it became toxic. Considering how often e-cigs have come up at ] where decent medical sources always seemed to be challenged by the same group of editors, I'm concerned there may be significant POVs running the discussion. The more problematic POV seems to be being critical specifically of sources that are critical of e-cigs. There are behavior issues tied to how editors are dealing with content, so it doesn't seem like it's easily addressed here at ANI where people will say it's just a content dispute and ignore the behavior problems within it. ] (]) 18:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:*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.
	::@Bluerasberry While it is not classically defined ] it is ] and the two are very close. ] 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:*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.
	*], it would be better to please keep ] on your own computer, not Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Otherwise, I don't see harassment here, and certainly not personal attacks. I agree with ] there's nothing for admins to do. ] &#124; ] 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC).
			:*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.
	::{{u|Bishonen}} So, its ok to smear another editor by bringing up old AN/I sections, even those that were closed with no consensus of wrongdoing. Even on article talk pages and others in an attempt to discredit and smear another editor? ] 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			: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)
	:::Bringing up what you have stated before is not a smear. Possibly a topic ban of ] would improve things. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (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 do think you may be right, that at least a temporary (perhaps 3 month) TBAN from electronic cigarette articles would be good for AlbinoFerret's equilibrium. This is an issue where advocates are running well ahead of the evidence, and this is necessarily a source of friction and controversy. The Misplaced Pages articles are a classic case of ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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.
	:::::I'd agree with considering a temp TBAN. I had a discussion with AF on my talk page awhile back about them being too locked-in to the topic and not being able to step back. Looking at the current situation I do think it would be helpful to both AF and the topic if they had a break. The previous ANI on AF specifically said there was no consensus at the time on an action, but that is very different from saying there wasn't a behavior problem. I think AF definitely has the potential to approach things more evenly ( conversation did give me some hope), but they really need to step out of their single topic and get experience in less contentious topics since their posting history looks like a ] right now.] (]) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			::{{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.}}
	::::::I am not a ], I edit other pages and have other interests. ] 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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
	::::@Doc James, The whole other section was a smear campaign, started by you. All based on content disputes. Had it resulted in a finding against me, perhaps it could be used here. But it didnt, and talk pages of articles are not the place to try and bring up dirt on another editor. ] 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}}
	* Some of what Albino says is valid, in that this is the proper forum for bringing the list of diffs - not article Talk pages or admin Talk pages. Deploying the list in that way is harassment-y and I think QG should be warned to address behavior issues in appropriate venues going forward. However I don't agree with anything else Albino has written. (particularly his claim that it was not valid ; we all know that many ANIs lose focus and become sprawling, uncloseable messes, as that one did. There was plenty of solid feedback on Albino's behavior in that ANI, however, and linking to it is OK.) ] (]) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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)
	* it appears that {{u|QuackGuru}} has not taken down the page tracking Albino's behavior yet, despite being advised to do so by an admin, which is not good. QG, it is fine to build such a list but you have to deploy it and then get rid of it. You may have not been ready to use it but your hand is forced now. So - either just delete it, or post it here with a request for admin or community action against Albino, and then delete it. But either way, it should go. ] (]) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (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 put for now. Is this or do you still prefer I blank the page. I'm not done with it. This will go to arbcom if admins don't do anything soon. ] (]) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:*:Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. ] (]) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{u|Quackguru}} see ] - it is OK to compile a list of behaviors in your userspace but you must use it timely. That is why i said that your hand has been forced, and you have to use it and lose it, or just lose it. It seems like you have enough there to request the community to topic-ban, and this is the place to do that. The last one could have potentially succeeded but it was lost in that totally sprawling ANI. But i will get out of the way and let bish answer. ] (]) 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:{{u|Quackguru}}, for you to blank it yourself would be an acceptable compromise, from where I stand, between the hat and putting a speedy tag on it. Blanking isn't a problem, is it? The material would still be at your fingertips via the history. ] &#124; ] 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC).
			:*'''Support''' Ban.
	::A short time ago I did . ] (]) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with ]. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Proposed Block for QuackGuru===
			::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.
	{{archive top|result=There is no concensus for a block of QuackGuru at this time. ]! 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			::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)
	QuackGuru has a long history of blocks and banns including a past block for personal attacks and harassment. He appears to be a ] that focuses on controversial medical articles. Past short banns and blocks have done no good. I proposed a indefinite block or alternately a one year block. He has engaged in harassment ] again. His actions to remove some of the harassment dont go far enough, the edit summaries are still there as well as the attacks on talk pages. ] 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! ] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:User:AlbinoFerret proposed the same thing before and that went nowhere fast. See ]. A return ] will resolve the issue at hand. ] (]) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (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 endorse an immediate block for QuackGuru for edit. I note that QuackGuru regards me as WP:INVOLVED per ] of his talk page. It lists a collection of dubious statements and untrue allegations against me, and has done since December 2014 in violation of ]. If QG has issues with me I request that they address them in the proper way. While I do not accept that I am INVOLVED here, I do request that another admin make the block. --] (]) 19:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::QuackGuru has no right to comment on AlbinoFerret's private life whatsoever, let alone assume he's lying about things ''QuackGuru can't know anything about''. I've warned him. ] &#124; ] 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC).
			::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::How many warnings will QG get for harassment? ] 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Perhaps the same amount of ] you've been given to continue your obvious advocacy. ] (]) 15:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Obvious advocacy? You are incorrect. That is a baseless false charge. ] 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Really, a "baseless false charge"? If that is so, it is one that is accepted as true by a goodly number of very experienced editors who voted in support of a topic ban for you. Your advocacy isn't in the least covert, it is, as several have commented, easily recognizable. ] (]) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I don't have time to count the total number of past warnings against QuackGuru, so I'll simply list the notices given recently:
	::::::* : A notice by admin Adjwilley was given for ignoring administrative advice and attacking an administrator
	::::::* : A notice by admin Rjanag was given for plagiarism
	::::::*: A warning by admin Shii was issued for edit warring
	::::::* : A warning by admin Kww was issued to QuackGuru for attacking ] in bad faith
	::::::I suppose one could give QuackGuru another warning and remind him not to ignore administrative advice or attack editors, as has been done many times in the past, but I don't think such an approach would be helpful to the community (or the administrators). This editor was many years ago for canvassing via email and making misleading accusations, and it appears that with every successive administrative warning, his disruptive behavior continues to worsen and escalate. -] 16:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::In addition I think that https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:QuackGuru may give light into QuackGuru's activities on electronic cigarette in the recent past. It has not gotten any better. Arguing round in circles trying to get a press release used for medical content, making 20000 character edits in private with no notice or discussion on the talk page. ] 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes, I agree that QuackGuru's ] is highly detrimental to the consensus building process and I note that he had been previously for making edits without first seeking consensus but am not surprised that he continues to ignore all administrative warnings. -] 16:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::You folks have a nice little circle going on here, a walled garden of mutually supportive comments, mostly between SPAs with the same objective in mind. Only problem is, every comment just makes the groups' general lack of objectivity even more obvious. ] (]) 22:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::I am not an SPA, and I suggest you strike out that comment. -] 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Since I'm just back from a sepsis-enforced break I don't want to step in and make what would be a controversial block, especially in a situation where an uninvolved admin decided to just warn you for it, but Quack, that was unnecessary and under different circumstances (and if I'd beaten Bish here,) I probably would've blocked you. If you do something similar in the future, I probably will. You do a lot of important content work, but there's really no reason to make such a comment. ] (]) 13:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support immediate block''' - by QuackGuru was clearly targeted against an editor's personal life. The edit summary was highly inappropriate, inexplicably cruel and plain disgusting. Given that the comment was made on the administrators' noticeboard where editors should be particularly mindful of their own behavior, and that QuackGuru had been previously warned and blocked for long-standing patterns of personal harrassment and disruptive editing (see and recent warnings), I think a much longer block might be necessary. We are not dealing with a new or inexperienced editor, but a disruptive, long-term editor (account created in 2006) who knows enough about Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies but continues to ignore them ''ad infinitum''. ] 13:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' per A1candidate. That comment from QG was beyond the pale. Considering his long list of blocks for the same type of behavior, I would hope such a block would be longer than a day or two. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 16:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	**A1 and WV please pay attention - above an admin has already said they took action for that comment. That incident is done. <u>A1</u> I understand you <s>both</s> would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery<s> but</s><u>. In any case</u> this attempt to pile on and override an admin is ''as unseemly'' as QG's remark. ] (]) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (amended per Winkelvi's objection below. my apologies. ] (]) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC))
	***There's nothing wrong with QG fighting quackery, except that he does it while violating a series of well-established behaviorial guidelines. His does not give me much hope that he will ever change his behavior. -] 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	***Jytdog, HOW CAN YOU EQUATE A SLUR with a call to sanction a slur?! It's entirely appropriate to debate whether a stronger sanction is warranted given the repugnance of ; it is nauseatingly out of bounds. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	****{{u|Middle 8}} I'll answer although the question seems more rhetorical than actually looking for an answer. I agree the comment was out of bounds - I was the one who hatted it. I also agree it was foul. I disagree with calling what he did a "slur" as he didn't insult AF based on his disability - instead he called AF a liar. It was a low blow, stupid, personal attack based on nothing; very bad judgement on multiple levels, especially in this context. I do see whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment, and trying to use that to gain momentum for a block, in the midst of a ''very badly'' framed case, as cynical and manipulative. So yeah, as unseemly as QG's remark, on a different vector. You may recall that I voted in favor of your RfC/U, even though it too was malformed. I think QG is very vulnerable to topic or even site banning based on a very clear record of bad behavior. he functions as kind of a "beserker" on fringe topics where you have alt med or other kinds of POV-pushers opposing sound MEDRS usage, and he goes right up to the line all the time, and over it, not infrequently. Just like he does at the e-cigs articles. I don't like to edit where he is working and leave ... but when he shows up things are pretty far gone already. Anyway, if you look at how this thread started, the case against QG is even more badly formed than your RfC/U, and that one failed too. (I said so way above, before you joined the discussion here) This one does not cut it. I am baffled as to why someone hasn't framed a clear case against him already. ] (]) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*****{{U|Jytdog}}, yes, rhetorical. You see it as bad and I see it as terrible. Calling someone a liar about their disability is for sure a slur ("an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation"), and it was gratuitous, dickish and cruel (see my comment below to Ched). We'll have to agree to disagree on the import/properness of A1C highlighting it here; my view is that it's not just about this case: given the well-known context of QG's long and checkered history, it's unacceptable, mean-spirited. In ''any'' context on WP it's an 8/10 on the NPA scale (where 9 is the N-word and 10 is falsely calling someone a pedophile). A line was crossed. One just doesn't do that to people.... especially in a situation where collegiality is expected. I agree with your other comments, and if/when a stronger case is brought, I am pretty sure that will feature. I may bring it to Jimbo's attention anyway. One does not screw with someone over their disability, including accusing them of lying about it ("disability policing" is corrosive); disability is hard enough as it is. Revolting. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) <small>edited20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
	***''"I understand you both would love to get rid of QG b/c he fights quackery"'' {{U|Jytdog}}, what the "eff" are you talking about? I haven't encountered QC before seeing this AN/I (that I'm aware of) so I have no idea what kind of "quackery" he fights (I'm not even sure what that means). Your accusation is out of line, but certainly not as out of line as QC's comments about AF. He has a long block log that testifies to his history of bullying and harassment. Your comments imply he's performing a necessary service to Misplaced Pages that we should all be grateful for. The truth is, Misplaced Pages is a ] and would do just fine ]. AGF and NPA, however, is not a choice -- it is required. In my opinion, your attempts to dismiss what he said by trying to assign ulterior motives to those who are supporting a block based on those comments are disgusting to me personally. I hope we never have to connect in WP again. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	****{{u|Winkelvi}} my apologies for lumping you with A1. That was sloppy of me and I apologize. I struck above accordingly. Again, my apologies. We actually have crossed paths briefly. ] (]) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*****Fine, I accept the apology, {{U|Jytdog}}. For the record, the crossing of paths comment was in reference to QG. I appreciate you striking the comments that included me, however, I still am not okay with your defense of QG and the reasons for said defense. It seems there is a suggestion that QC's contributions should outweigh the fact he questioned and mocked someone's disability status. Not acceptable, in my view. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*****Thanks that is gracious of you. i think you are still <u>mis</u>understanding my perspective - pls see my comment to middle8 above. ] (]) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (oy, forgot a crucial "mis". additional note. i do agree that the remark was disgusting. really i do. ] (]) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC))
	*'''Support''' - I completely agree with weeding out quackery, but there are enough people willing to do it without QuackGuru's uncooperative, bullying style of editing. It looks like he's had plenty warnings and chances to improve his behaviour, but he clearly has no intention of doing so.--] (]) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	* <s>'''Support block per John'''</s> '''Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future''' -- making clear my priorities. <small>!vote changed, preceding comment added, QG-specific parts of below comment struck 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)</small> <s>Set aside the other complaints;</s> John is right that deserves an immediate block. It's a gratuitous slur, and worse than a lot of people probably realize: is real and corrosive. This cuts deep in ways that perhaps only people affected by disability can fully grasp. <s>While QuackGuru may not have been aware of "disability policing", he damn well should have known his accusation was afoul of NPA, especially with a long block log and eight years of editing. Still, o</s> Our standards should reflect growing disability awareness. <s>Some may dismiss my comments as cynical since I've clashed with QuackGuru, but</s> I find this triggering and it transcends WP politics. I apologize to Bishonen (who declined John's suggestion to block) and others for suggesting below that merely warning QG shows softness and callousness, and am hatting my (largely) hot and ABF comments just below. Still, John is right and we shouldn't tolerate such attacks. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hat|reason=collapsing excessively hot and ABF comments made in reaction to personal attack}}
	<strike>*'''Great -- now Misplaced Pages is going all callous about NPA and slurs based on disability.''' Apparently NPA means nothing as long as the attacker is well-liked, the attackee is not, and the attack is on a relatively invisible, disadvantaged group. Quackguru just insinuated . Are you people that tone-deaf?
	** If ANY editor had said what QG said about race or sexual orientation or gender, they'd be blocked or banned in a heartbeat. The only thing worse is outright stereotyping. Disability rights, as a movement, isn't taken seriously compared to other rights movements; we see this everywhere, great job Misplaced Pages.
	** If SOME of the other editors here had said what QG said -- especially to a "favored" editor -- they'd be at least blocked, even though QG has a longer block log than the large majority of editors whose conduct comes up for review. And should know better, has edited for over 8 years.
	** WP's double standard on NPA is now de facto policy, as is the "ends justify the means" attitude. As if the antidote for "civil POV pushing" is incivility, no matter how offensive it gets. </strike>
	** Yes, I've been on the other side of content disputes with QuackGuru but this goes way deeper than that because it's about disability. I have direct experience with it (in multiple ways; it's intense, exhausting, takes away opportunities every day -- it is what it is but at least show some respect). And I've seen how damaging it is when self-appointed "disability police" challenge others' disabilities. Being disabled is hard enough without all the cluelessness and bullshit people lay on you.<strike>
	** Nauseating hypocrisy: a warning is all that's given despite the magnitude of NPA violation, and in spite of the block log and years of editing. (And as usual, QG removes the warning right away .) At least User:John gets it; from your comments, most of the rest of you admins don't.
	* OK, enough. The double standard is sickening, and the tone-deafness to disability just makes me numb with rage. Great job, people.</strike> --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) <small>copy-edited 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)</small> <br><small>Striking; my intent with hatting was to strike the whole thing, but now that I'm striking so as to be exactly clear about my intentions, I'll leave one part.01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC) </small>
	{{hab}}		{{hab}}
			*'''Comment''' I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: ]. There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I agree. QG partakes in low-level and/or borderline transgressions on a regular basis, then occasionally, often when he '''thinks''' he can get away with it he ups the ante and completely oversteps the mark. The fact that QG went and made that comment kind of vindicates AF's original claims that QG was personally attacking him. QG thought things were going his way and that a ] was heading towards AF so he chanced his luck with more blatant attacks. Looks like he'll probably get away with it as well. I'm not going to recommend anything is done with QG, I'll leave that up to less involved editors but I do know from experience that QG is an impossible editor to work with and that he is not interested in consensus, never has been, probably never will be. People say he fights quackery, but there are plenty of editors that fight quackery that do not have long block logs for personal attacks, harassment, disruptive editing, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately many of these editors, whom I have a reasonable degree of respect for, seem to support QG.] (]) 14:09, 8 March 2015 (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) ==
	::: FWIW comment. QG has been around for a long time. I think there's a huge "WP:IDHT" issue with them, but I don't think it's deliberate. Anything related to "disabilities" is a very sensitive topic, and with good reason. Yes, QG is very tendentious by nature, and it can be very exasperating. Personally I had a few ''very'' long conversations with QG long ago, and I came to one conclusion: I don't think there's an ounce of intent to hurt anyone in his efforts here. Yes, .. he tends to go through things here with blinders on - but I don't think there's any intent to do harm in him. If you told QG "you hurt my feelings", he would spend hours digging up diffs and links to prove that he didn't. QG is doing his best to help the project, but I doubt is has ever crossed his mind to NPA/attack anyone. Just IMO. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I too, tried to have a conversation with QG long ago. That apparently did not work out, and he eventually acknowledged the futility of such an approach by stating in the edit summary that he was to listen. His most recent right after I opposed his attempt to ban AF is disingenuous, to say the least. -] 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: I do understand your frustrations, and I wish I had an answer for you - but I can't think of one. There's a huge resistance to anything "fringe" related on wikipedia. The project secures itself in fact. Until you can actually prove that the earth is round - it will remain flat. That's just the nature of the beast. The best I can offer is this: don't tilt at windmills, recognize brick walls when you see them - and don't beat your head on them, and take comfort in your own beliefs - even if other's don't share them. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Appreciate your comments there Ched, I probably shouldn't have brought intent into it since its the conduct issues that ultimately matter.] (]) 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save {{Ping|KJP1}} the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. ] (]) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::: @ {{U|Ched}} - I too had the impression that QG was fundamentally benign for some time until I saw his mean side. For example, WP:DICK, mocking other editors: Mallexikon: ; Quackguru: . He's also held a grudge toward me that started after I co-signed an ] on him (which was concurrently brought with a ]). Since then it's been POKE and BATTLEGROUND (below) despite multiple olive branches attempts (which he just deletes from his user talk).
			: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)
	:::::* Wikistalking: 10 petty examples
			:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::* GAME-y/KETTLE accusations: characterizing edits I made as bad when he did the same thing
			::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)
	:::::* Repeated, baiting, disingenuous "questions" about COI despite an explanation right in my signature line (] <small>(] • ])</small>) and multiple good-faith answers: (<small></small> | <small> </small>); (<small></small>); (<small> <small>|</small> </small>).
			:::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)
	::::: The above is not innocent. <strike>But it doesn't matter; NPA and CIVIL are to be applied only selectively, apparently.</strike>
			::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::: So, no, I don't accept that QG's slur against AlbinoFerret was anything other than an attempt to mock and discredit them. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (struck sentence 02:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
			:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
	::::::Yes suppression of legitimate discussion regarding QG's conduct on their talk page to avoid detection is yet another issue, I have an example of that: . Edit: Another, better example, of plain deletion this time: ] (]) 18:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			:I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
			: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.
	*'''Oppose here (for now) and take to ArbCom instead.''' Given that QG's behavior is so heavily tied to other editors and their actions in the topic, his behavior would seem better evaluated at ArbCom instead along with the suite of e-cig issues. The case below this seems to be much more standalone, but QG's actions are so intertwined with other editor's actions and mired in controversial topics it would seem a more methodical look by ArbCom would be more appropriate than a knee-jerk reaction here. People end up dealing with a lot of crap when dealing with fringe or advocacy type editors, so some of that does need to be disentangled in the topic. That being said, I do think QG can go too far sometimes. We don't afford people with disabilities any special privileges over anyone else here, and talking about AF's situation is going to be tough no matter what. ] has been brought up in that regard, but that's really as far as any conversation about disability should have gone. Since action has already been taken with regard to QG's comment on whether AF is disabled or not, are more systemic look at behavior at the article and with users is needed to really discuss the appropriateness of a block. I don't see that here at this time. ] (]) 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::He has been previously banned by Arbcom for similar behavioral issues and POV-pushing patterns. The Committee concluded that there was . That was back in 2011. We are now in 2015, but has anything improved after four years of leniency and good faith assumptions? -] 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Chastising QG for a lack of progress in an area where essentially no progress has been made is a little one-sided, though. If everyone that attempted to warp our articles in favor of pseudoscience was simultaneously and indefinitely banned, wouldn't that do far more good?&mdash;](]) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::That would do far more good if you take into account QG's repeated attempts to claim that mummified tattoo marks . How is that not a blatant act of pseudoscience advocacy ? -] 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	* {{U|Levelledout}} .. understood. I think perhaps given the scope of all of this, that it is beyond what Ani is tasked to do Perhaps the ] route is the best option. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 19:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. ] (]) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' ArbCom action should be undertaken. There has been much contentious editing from all sides. Blocking isn't going to resolve the issues. ] (]) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Comment: The question of why this has not been elevated long before this... ] (]) 22:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			:At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --] (]) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' I said it above and I will say it again here. I think a good, PAG-based (not emotion/rhetoric-based) case could be pretty easily made, with about a couple hours of work finding difs. This case, is not that case, and thinking about a closer looking at !votes above, it does not appear that there is PAG-based consensus for a block here. In my view, the notion of punting his case to arbcom is just that - punting. The same work would have to go into it then, to make the case, so why not just do it here? (Arbcom cases don't happen by magic - diffs have to be brought, etc) So withdraw the mess above, and start a new, clean, well-formed thread, if it really matters to any of the supporters. ({{u|AlbinoFerret}} is the one who brought this: I believe he is the only who can withdraw it) ] (]) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. ] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::So you agree that there is reason to block him but it needs to have a pretty bow on it. ] 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{u|AlbinoFerret}} your reply is of a piece with your general lack of alignment with, and understanding of, how WP works. The community doesn't take action based on emotion, and we don't edit or resolve content disputes, based on what somebody likes or doesn't like. This isn't facebook. We have policies and guidelines that express the community's consensus on things, and we strive to edit based on them, behave based on them, and resolve disputes through reasoned discussion based on them. Reasoned and discerning ] is the very heart of this place. Hand-wavy "he's a dick" complaints don't go anywhere, and don't deserve to go anywhere - they don't provide a basis for rational discussion of the issues.] (]) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			::I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on ] quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on ]. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ] feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. ] (]) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' Agree with Doc James and Jytdog. And I'm not asserting Quackguru has done nothing wrong! But yes, this is whipping up hysteria over a stupid comment. ] (]) 05:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in ], ] and ]. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::A stupid comment? It was an attack. A low blow, and it follows attempts to discredit and harass me elsewhere. I should be surprised that anyone could come up with a defence of his actions, especially the one here on this page. You and the two editors you mention want a slap on a wrist, but only for an editor who edits with you, and who's edits you agree with. Had this been a first time, perhaps but we are way past first time as shown by QuackGuru's extensive history of harassment, edit warring, and other violations. ] 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::::@]. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. ] (]) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Has been warned And has acknowledged. ] (] · ] · ]) 05:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::@], the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. ] (]/]) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::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.
	*'''Oppose'''. I can get as annoyed as the next person with QG, but this does not merit a block (at least not one more than 24 hours); a warning (if anything) would suffice. ] (]) 12:23, 10 March 2015 (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.
	*'''Support''' Any derogatory comments about a person's health, or accusations that a person is lying about their health, is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. As such, a block ''of some sort'' is clearly warranted - though I would find a lengthy one to be draconian, a moderate one is likely in order here. ] (]) 12:50, 10 March 2015 (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.
	*'''{{Non-administrator observation|admin}}''' I am heavily ] in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in AF it's leaning towards ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT. The regularity with which QG makes edits without discussion on the Talk pages of e-cig articles, even though he knows that any edit on that page is likely to be contentious, makes it clear he's not looking for consensus but the article as he sees it. I also see competence issues in many of QG's edits which could do with a bit of copy editing for structure and repetition before they go live. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think the page cannot improve with QG there. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but while banning QG from the page will reduce the amount of problems there it won't solve the root. ] (]) 12:37, 11 March 2015 (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)
	* '''Support indef block or send to ArbCom'''. QuackGuru continues to make personal attacks, despite being warned as recently as a few days ago. In of a couple of days ago QG attacks the conduct of several editors including myself and demands that answers be provided to them. ] is quite clear that this is not allowed and that article talk pages are not the place for conduct accusations and smears. However, the worst thing about QG's conduct is the that they are not interested in consensus. Building 20k edits (about 1/3 of the article size) in relative privacy and then dumping them into articles without notification let alone discussion is consistent with this. Attempting to discuss matters with QG on their user talk page generally results in them suppressing the discussion by archiving or deleting it (or parts of it that they don't like), e.g. ] ]. QG of course has a very long block log and has also had been in the past so has been given numerous chances to improve their conduct and shows little signs of doing so. I considered whether to make this post at all given that I am a highly involved editor. However this doesn't seem to be an issue for other editors, some of which have supported QG. As I have indicated I would have no issues with ArbCom taking a look at the wider picture.] (]) 13:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			::Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? ] (]/]) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	**<s>really baffling to me. The first dif you provide is just a Talk discussion (QG arguing against the bizarre claim that MEDRS says only reviews can be used and excludes statements by major health organizations); the 2nd is fine (per TPG it is OK to delete others' comments from your own Talk page) as is the 4th (people can archive their talk pages as they wish). The Arbcom diff is old history (that ''should'' be brought up in any carefully brought case and has already been mentioned above). I really don't understand why folks are not framing a clear case showing violations of behavioral policies and guidelines. ] (]) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)</s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))
			:::I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —] (]) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
	:::The case against QG is rather clear cut in my opinion Jytdog and I respectfully disagree with you. Yes the first diff is an article talk discussion, that's my point. Content is irrelevant here as is whether QG is right or wrong about any content claims he makes. QG makes conduct allegations on the article talk page such as accusing editors of disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Some of the language they use is just plain rude and actually borders on a breach of ]. Whether or not QG is technically allowed to delete individual comments from their talk page is hardly the point. Remember that they do not own their user talk page and that part of its purpose is for legitimate discussion of their conduct. I have only ever had two discussions (as far as I can recall) with QG on their talk page and on both of those occasions they have either deleted or archived the discussion or parts of it in order to prevent it from continuing. I was fully aware that the ArbCom diff had been mentioned, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the point I was making.] (]) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - '''Summary:''' QuackGuru made an extremely '''''stupid''''' remark that he should '''''never''''' have made, he was roundly chastised for it repeatedly by parties '''''from all sides''''', and an admin warned him not to do it again on pain of being blocked. The End.<p>The rest of this is just advocacy-driven hysteria, obvious e-cig advocates and fringe science advocates trying to take out one of their opposite numbers in a content dispute, in retaliation for the suggestion of a topic ban for one of them. (That suggestion of a topic ban, incidentally, came '''''before''''' QG's remark or this sub0section, which AlbinoFerret shoved in here '''''above''''' the topic-ban section, out of chronological order, so that people reading the thread would get to it first -- an extremely good example of the kind of ] tactics being carried on by the e-cig advocates. ). No admin is going to override the original admin's warning with a block, that would be, in effect, double jeopardy, so this entire section is just useless and should be closed by an uninvolved party. ] (]) 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*Just to clarify, not everyone who !voted "support" is a e-cig advocate or a fringe science advocate, obviously, but the campaign to ban QG and the hysteria surrounding his remark is indeed the work of those advocates. No collusion is implied concerning the actions of those advocates - I'm certain there's no need for them to discuss between themselves taking out one of their primary antagonists. AlbinoFerret started the ball rolling, and his colleagues joined in. ] (]) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::The original complaint was made by Albino Ferret against QuackGuru alleging personal attacks. Therefore that's what was being discussed at the top of the thread and would seem the natural place to put the Proposed Block for QuackGuru. To claim that the thread not being in exact chronological order is going to affect the way that people vote is well, ridiculous. People might see one or the other first but it doesn't matter. Also, you argued particularly passionately that the proposal for AF was not driven mainly by involved editors and yet apparently QG's block proposal is an "advocacy-driven hysteria" "campaign". Strange.] (]) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Each of your responses in this section and the one below adds to the clear conclusion that you are not the neutral party you claim to be. ] (]) 22:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::OK well that is a baseless accusation that uses weasel words (I'm not the neutral party I claim to be because... just because). It's one way of neglecting to respond to reasoned argument of course, but not one that I appreciate or that I will be engaging with.] (]) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Any open-minded uninvolved editor will see '''''precisely''''' what I mean, despite your Wikilawyering. ] (]) 00:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::You need to provide evidence for serious accusations, not unsubstantiated insults. You should probably also read ] and ].] (]) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: is real, and damaging, and an issue on Misplaced Pages: see the from an editor concerned about that exact thing. For obvious reasons, I wish someone other than me had posted about it (or that someone other than QuackGuru had made the offensive comment). I'm done commenting in this thread on the merits of a block but "disability policing" needs to be taken seriously on WP. ... P.S. Just to make my intentions clear I've changed my !vote above to {{tq|"Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future"}}. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) <small>added P.S. 05:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
	:::Editors are blocked when bad behaviour needs to be ''prevented''; editors are ] when there is very little chance of a problem being repeated. QG has ], albeit not very clearly, and there is no reason to debate the issue—if there is a repeat, QG will get a lengthy block; if there isn't, a block for a single bad comment is not warranted. The comment is not part of a series of similar issues. ] (]) 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Hi ] -- I read ] specifically before commenting. In a case like this, per ], #3 would apply: some offenses are so bad that we block automatically. (#2 could also apply when an editor has a tendency to push the envelope: they may not make ''this'' mistake again, but a block may get their attention. But #3 is the main thing.) --] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Is that your considered opinion as an independent editor with a good understanding of Misplaced Pages's procedures, or as an acupuncturist who is very keen to have QG removed so you can promote your product unimpeded? ] (]) 09:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Very much the former, which I think should be obvious in light of my !vote change to: {{tq|"Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future"}}. . Look just a little bit above and you might even see that I mentioned this previously. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::], I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation starting after this comment by AlbinoFerret , but it does appear that AlbinoFerret is trying to justify their focus on e-cigs because of their disability (or extremely misunderstanding BMK's point). I'd prefer the topic of disability never even entered the conversation and focus solely on behavior here, but this kind of justification really concerns me. This is very different from questioning whether someone actually has a disability, so are you suggesting we shouldn’t question this kind of behavior I’m describing, or moreso not do what QuackGuru did specifically? This becoming a really strange situation. ] (]) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::@Kingofaces43: Not all that strange, really. The case against AlbinoFerrett as a SPA and ] is quite strong, and he's feeling the need to counter it with whatever he's got. So, even though he called for sanctions against QG for bringing up his physical disability, he obviously feels no compunction about using that physical disability as an explanation for the amount of editing he's done on e-cigarettes. What he seems not to understand is that by comparing oranges to oranges -- i.e. by dealing with percentages of his own edits as opposed to comparing the count of his edits against those of other editors -- that factor is eliminated, and has no bearing on the question. Whatever his physical disabilities are is irrelevant, because they exist when he edits an e-cig article and still exist when he edits an article on any other subject. So when I report that 67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of his article talk page edits are on the subject of electronic cigarettes, there's no way in which any disability enters into those stats. ] (]) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, I just dont like numbers and innuendo being used to discredit me. ] 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::Hi ] - QuackGuru's that AlbinoFerret was lying about being disabled was completely gratuitous. All AF had said was, essentially, that their post count in the e-cig area is high partly because they're disabled and thus at home and in front of the computer a lot. There was no reason to dispute this and it was dickish and invasive to do so.
	::::::::::Note: I think AF's volume of posting by itself doesn't require apology, so their disability is actually irrelevant in terms of examining their edits. What matters are the kind of edits and where they are made. Re the kind of edits, I've expressed concerns over AF's persistently not grokking MEDRS. Re where edits are made, ] is correct that what is germaine to SPA and WP:ADVOCACY is not how many total posts AF has made about e-cigs, but rather what percentage such posts comprise of his total mainspace edits. ... That said, even if AF's disability is ultimately irrelevant to this inquiry, the baseless accusation that they lied is still wrong. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::P.S. Meta-comment, seed for possible essay: Disability among editors on Misplaced Pages needs to be addressed with common sense and respect; it should neither be used for ]s nor as a way to discredit people in any way -- including suggesting that a person is lying about it. As lie-accusations go, this is an especially bad one. When a person is simply asking for a ], and not attempting to justify ] -- or is simply mentioning their disability by way of explanation of their editing style (as AF was, in above case) -- the burden they are imposing is low. Therefore it would be stupid to demand proof, and more stupid (and dickish as well) to accuse that person of lying about their disability, with no basis and with such low stakes; cf. (which may be one of those things, like getting called an epithet, that sounds bad but which you have to experience to know what it's really like). I hope that our norm becomes one of rejecting "disability policing" in any form. Demands of proof are bad and outright lie-accusations worse. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Thanks for clarifying, I pretty much agree with you entirely. No reason to ask of actual proof, but in cases like these I'd prefer not to even worry about disability and just chalk up relatively innocuous editing quirks as just that, and if something truly disruptive, it's disruptive. ] (]) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' ] questioned a personal comment made by ] which he should not have done. But, in my judgement, this comment does not rise to the level of a block/ban. For the record, QG did not reveal or attempt to out AF in any way. Counsel him to use caution and move on. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose block''', but QG should face some admonishment for the disability-questioning comment. This is probably something that should be referred to ArbCom. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as it looks like QuackGuru was fairly neutral in what he added, and all of it was well cited. I agree that that was a very offensive comment he made, but he already received an admin warning for it, so I would consider it closed. If, however, QG does continue with personal attacks, especially of that nature, I would support a block or a referral to ArbCom. ] (]) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			(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.)
	===Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret===
			* 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.
	{{archive top|result=] has agreed to voluntarily walk away from the topic area for 6 months after a discussion on my talk page. AlbinoFerret can still engage in legitimate dispute resolution (eg. the Arbcom request) but will otherwise be taking a break from editing anything related to e-cigarettes. I feel this is an acceptable compromise to the differing views expressed in this thread, and it will give AlbinoFerret time to gain editing experience and perspective in less controversial areas. <p>I have left the primary thread open for now because I'd like to let the discussion about Discretionary Sanctions run for another day before closing to make sure the community really wants that. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			* Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content calling it "irrelevant". At ], PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article ], , cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, ], the entire Architecture section was . However, their church articles always contain something like {{tq|The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings.}} sourced to ''achurchnearyou.com'', often as a separate "Present day" section. of ] (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose: {{tq|All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs.}} (And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing ] and ], both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.)
	<!--archive top|result=I am archiving the thread I started for the following reason. This discussion has gone on for a very long time and this appears to be going nowhere since no action has been taken. So, I started an ArbCom discussion. See ]. Note. If an admin wants to act on their own discretion regarding this matter then this closing does not affect that, as always they are accountable to the community. If no admin chooses to act on this then it is not an admin matter. If any admin thinks this close is premature they are welcome to revert it. ] (]) 23:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)-->
			* Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as , was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.)
	User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See ] for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a . He eventually tried to delete some of the text. AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources. AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. ] is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a ]. AlbinoFerret is not the only problematic editor at these pages. Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are not here to improve the e-cig pages. See ] for background information on this. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening over and over again. ] (]) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			* 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.
	:Those were edits in a content dispute. Some of them over 2 months old. This is not about content, but your actions on talk pages. ] 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			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)
	::This is also about you deleting relevant content you find offensive. AlbinoFerret has a repeated pattern of trying to delete pertinent information about safety. AlbinoFerret is unable to formulate a logical reason for excluding the text. ] (]) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::That is a misstatement. There are valid reasons why the content was removed all covered under talk page sections.. But this isnt a content dispute, this is a discussion of harassment that happened because you decided to smear me on talk pages. As for ], I think you have done enough with building over 19000 character in edits , not discussing any of it on the talk pages, and then adding it, and reverting it back in. On such a contentious article, that should never have happened ] In fact looking at the pages history, you are still planning more because of recient additions, but none of them have been brought to the talk page. ] 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::: Albino you are digging your hole deeper by making spurious complaints. per the userpage guideline ] it is totally fine to draft article content in userspace. ] (]) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Its not spurious, but the basis of WP, Consensus. But there is no consensus in building 19000 character edits in private, and making one 16k edit at once. There was no discussion on the addition, no post on the talk pages directing the other editors to it to look over. This has been done before on the main e-cig page. Granted there is nothing wrong with building edits on a sandbox, but a edit that is 1/3rd the size of the page should have been discussed. ] ] 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{od}} QG, you should request some specific action that you would like the community to take - make a proposal and let folks react. You have been around long enough to know that just saying "something must be done" (passive voice) will get you no where fast. ] (]) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:I think an is most appropriate rather than a '''short-term topic ban'''. It is clear that ] is ] to improve the e-cig pages. ] (]) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Really, and what evidence exactly do you present in support of that? Other than the fact that you have disagreements with AF over content which is neither here nor there, I can't see that you've stated any whatsoever.] (]) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (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)
	*'''support indef topic ban''' AlbinoFerret is ] and is ]. And this has been going on for a long time. And I see no reason to believe it will improve. Many chances have been given and few have been taken. It's time for this to stop. ] (]) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' I would support a one year topic ban. Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)		:All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'd like to point to ]: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. ] (]) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per Doc James. ] (]) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (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).
	*'''Support''' one year topic ban for Albinoferret. There are many issues here and AF is disrupting any genuine attempts to improve the articles, so much that it is bordering on ]. AF has previously done good work on other articles and I believe AF's and everyone else's time could be spent much better. -- ] ] (]) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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: ].
	*'''Oppose''' This is nothing more than a content dispute. With diff's gathered over months showing a content dispute. All of which have talk page sections dealing with the content . The only thing this will accomplish is silence a active editor from the article that disagrees with some content, that press releases should not be used for medical content or problems with the sources. In fact one post above me, Doc James, lists a reason for banning me is that "Hopefully in that time evidence will become more clear and the topic less controversial.". ] 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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.
	::Albino "the evidence" that Doc James is referring to, is medical evidence about risks of e-cigs. I know that a huge focus of yours, has been reducing the amount of ] in the article... but what is, in fact, statements about the unfolding medical consensus on risks. What he meant is that when the science is more solid and the scientific debate settles, there will be less controversy, and that in a year you should have even weaker grounds on which to be disruptive. ] (]) 00:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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.
	:::Yes, it is speculation. From the Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" source, the topic of the section you linked to "No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production". Unfolding evidence? More like a lot of opinions to me, not based on anything, and the lone "review" of its kind. Because apparently it didnt review any studies as it says none exist. Its given its own section? Huge ] issue here. Being the only source of its kind, what it reviewed is, basically nothing. This is a perfect example of a content dispute, and diffs 157-161 in QuackGurus post above, which are about three months old. ]13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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.
	::::I would say that ''the fact that you wrote the above'', is a perfect example of your persistence in objecting, repeatedly and over a long period of time, to the inclusion of reasonable and well sourced content about health risks being added to the articles, by editors who are very experienced in dealing with health matters in WP. That you bring this up ''again'', even here and now, is exactly why I support the topic ban. You know, I looked and looked, but I couldn't find a diff for this, but didn't you write somewhere that you care about this so much because your wife really needed to quit smoking and tried and tried and couldn't, and it was e-cigs that finally helped her do it? If I have that wrong, I apologize. ] (]) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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).
	:::::I would say to that, that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But consensus is how WP is edited. Others have reasons to include this in the article, where it has stayed for the last three months or so. That does not mean I dont think its a ] issue. It means that its included even though I think it has a weight issue. What you dont have is actions pointing to advocacy. You have a difference of opinion on content. ] 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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.
	:::I think DocJames can likely speak for himself but anyway Jytdog, the "unfolding medical consensus" is basically that the short term risks are pretty low and that the long term risks should theoretically also be low. The only "speculation" is exactly how low the long-term risks are. If you are saying that in a years time it will be proven that e-cigarettes are more harmful, well that is just basically crystal-ball stuff. We shouldn't really be discussing content here, but since it seems to be being used as evidence so it seems somewhat necessary. Just demonstrates that this is a content dispute really.] (]) 14:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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)
	::::nope you are missing the point; this ''is'' about Albino's behavior. i won't belabor this. ] (]) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (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)
	*'''Support''' in my view to topic ban AlbinoFerret (which I supported) would have succeeded, except it turned into a sprawling mess and was closed out of hopelessness. This one is squarely focused. AlbinoFerret is a ] who wages an ] campaign favorable to e-cigs, and has been relentless in opposing the addition of well-sourced content about health risks. That pattern is clear from difs above and in the prior ANI. I do not intend this to be cruel, but he is housebound and edits WP to keep himself sane (which I am ''very'' sympathetic toward) but still, ] - and especially not when, combined with advocacy, his editing is disruptive. ( directly before.) He is the paradigm of disruptive advocacy on this article. ''WP is vast - let Albino edit elsewhere and not disrupt this topic any more.'' ] (]) 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	**I am far from a SPA, I am a member of WikiProject Citation cleanup and also edit Bitcoin. As for ], sane as in keeping active, you can only watch so many daytime talk shows or soap operas. ] 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hat|hatting personalization of the discussion. Out of bounds and distracting from focus of Albino's behavior ] (]) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	***User:AlbinoFerret say his motivation is to That is contrary to the . ] (]) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::: Your leaving out the part "My motivation is to help bring what is known about tobacco harm reduction to the article". Bringing out what is known about something is (through reliable sources), I hope, the goal of every WP editor. ] 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	***], User:AlbinoFerret claims he is but he previously said Does anyone really think he is disabled? ] (]) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I do get out every so often, and helping short term as a election judge is something I try to do. You would be surprised at the number of disabled people who work as election judges. I would be happy to send to an uninvolved admin a letter from Social security stating I am disabled. ] 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	*'''Support''' topic ban per Jytdog. <s>I don't have a strong opinion about the duration, but a year seems about right. </s>] &#124; ] 00:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC).
	::Changed my mind about the duration, per Kevin Gorman below. I support an indefinite ban with the option to appeal after a year. ] &#124; ] 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC).
	*'''Oppose''' The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is e-cigarette articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning AF would help. Yes it would help, it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with AF for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that AF has raised some genuine issues here, did in fact originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page with QG going about things in a covert way and dumping 20k edits into articles without so much as notification. QG attacked AF on the article page which according to ] is not allowed. For this to be turned back round on AF is very harsh and unjust I think. It also seems to be almost entirely without substance.] (]) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	**Considering that 57% of your edits (257/450 - with '''''<u>233</u>''''' to ]???) are to articles or talk pages about electronic cigarettes, it seems not impossible that you are a SPA as well, perhaps one with a COI. ] (]) 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Since when is a roughly 50/50 (haven't been bothered to check the exact amount) split between e-cig and other articles considered a single purpose account? What about editors that edit medical articles far more than I actually edit e-cig articles? Or is that perfectly OK I take it? Your COI accusation is spurious, groundless and you have no right to make it. Helps deflect some attention and blame though I suppose.] (]) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::So, you don't think that 57% of your edits going to '''''one very specific subject''''' &ndash; electronic cigarettes &ndash; and 43% going to a variety of other topics is an pretty good indication that you're here primarily to edit about that one subject? I would beg to differ, I think it's a '''''damn''''' good marker. It's not like your 57% is going to some broad area, like military history, or New York City or films, it's going to '''''electronic cigarettes'''''.<p>Like Bishonen, whose comment is just below this, I don't believe that '''''any''''' of my edits has been to articles on that subject (but I could be wrong, with over 150,000 edits you do lose track of a few in the course of almost 10 years), but I know '''''advocacy''''' when I see it ... and I've got pretty good radar for SPAs and socks as well. 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I've already told you what I think so I'll leave it at that for now. I'm not sure what you having made 150,000 edits and being on Misplaced Pages for 10 years has got to do with anything either.] (]) 16:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::You "think" almost everyone who has supported the topic ban is involved in the content dispute? Please don't hazard tendentious guesses about things that could be checked with a little research. Here, I'll help you with one item: I for my part have barely heard of e-cigarettes. I'm supporting the topic ban because I can recognize ], at least when it's as obvious as this. ] &#124; ] 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC).
	:::::I did not do an in depth analysis before I posted of course, nor can you reasonably expect me to before every post. But I do know that of the posters above QuackGuru (the proposer of the ban) and Doc James are highly involved and Cloudjpk, CFCF and Jytdog have all contributed to e-cig articles and have tended to be on the opposing side of the content dispute to Albino Ferret.] (]) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, actually, we '''''can''''' expect you to do some due diligence before you make claims about other editors' motivations. ] (]) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::As I said clearly enough for you to understand I knew with a reasonable degree of certainty that 5/7 editors were involved all along. I thought it was probably 6/7, hence "almost all" which was an approximation. Nobody was mentioned personally and it turned out to be 5/7. Big deal. Can we move on from this nonsense now please?] (]) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::If it's "nonsense", it '''''your''''' nonsense, not mine. Are all the supporting editors below also sworn enemies of AlbinoFerret? If not, doesn't that change your !vote, since it was based on the supposed involvement of the supporting editors? And since you're on the other side of the debate as an SPA, should we discount '''''your''''' !vote as you would like us to discount those editors above who you say are involved?<p>No, what was nonsense was your initial comment, which appears to me to have been disingenuous. ] (]) 23:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Despite the fact that you obviously do not accept this, I am entitled to my original opinion. I stand by it and with all due respect, do not care what you think.] (]) 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hat|hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock ] (]) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	**@InfiniteBratwurst: So, you took your 56 edits and your vast 9 weeks of Misplaced Pages experience and went looking into other editor's block logs in order to come here, !vote oppose, and poison some wells with the dirty little secrets you uncovered there? (How does an editor with 56 edits find out about block logs, anyway? I was here for quite a while before I heard about them.) You complain that the editors supporting the topic ban are involved in a content dispute with AF, but you don't mention that the article '''''you''''' have edited the most. with more than double the edits of the next-most article, is ''']''', that its talk page is the one you've edited the most, the seoncd-most being ''']''' -- but I assume you'll tell us that, unlike the other editors commenting here, '''''you''''' are uninvolved, '''''you''''' are totally neutral, and '''''your''''' vote is in no way influenced by your personal views. Everyone else's is, of course, but not yours. ] (]) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	***''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	****Wow!!!! 9 weeks here, less than 60 edits, and you cite an obscure '''''essay''''' from Meta. The closing admin should note with pride '''''what an extremely knowledgeable newbie InfiniteBratwurst is!!!!''''' ] (]) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*****''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	******Oh, I think pointing out your very interesting, if short, history is quite constructive indeed. ] (]) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*******], InfiniteBratwurst is actually CheesyAppleFlake. See ]. ] (]) 17:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	********''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	*********{{u|QuackGuru}} if there is a case to be made, please make it at ] and post here. Otherwise please don't add distraction. Thanks. ] (]) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	***********Yup once you have SPI confirmation you can discuss. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*******BMK, you've been around since 2009 (aren't you an admin, and weren't you an Arb?) At any rate why are you still this rankly clueless about commenting on content not contributors? Is NPA just deprecated? You've done this before -- what is your problem? You know very well that some editors make CLEANSTART accounts and that is their business. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	********@Middle8. Wrong on every count. I've had an account here since June '''''2005''''', started editing shortly before that as an IP (see for the thumbnail of my history). I've never been an admin (perish the thought!), don't '''''want''''' to be an admin, will almost uncertainly never '''''be''''' an admin, and would be an absolutely '''''lousy''''' admin if someone forced me to do it. And, of course, I've never been an Arbitrator. I have no idea who you are thinking of, but it ain't me.<p>Comment on content, not contributors? Sure, in general, great concept, but '''''<u>this</u>''''' is the place where the community examines behavior, and not just the behavior of the subject of the thread. If someone pops up to comment with an editing history that looks very much like they're a SPA, or have a COI, edit with a distinct POV to push, are someone's sock, or were canvassed on- or off-Wiki to participate, those are facts that need to be brought forward, because they can (and should!) mitigate the value of that user's comment. It's completely valid to point that stuff out, and as long as people continue to take advantage of Misplaced Pages to promote whatever it is they're promoting, whether or not they're paid for it, I'm going to keep pointing it out. ] (]) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	********BTW ] may be one of the most abused Misplaced Pages policies around. Any user who is making a clean start should be obligated to say so when questioned with good reason about their editing, and to report to a CU of their choice the name of their previous account to be checked to be sure they aren't evading a block or are a sockpuppet of a banned editor. A clean start should never be a license for serial misbehavior, which is what I'm afraid it most probably is utilized for. ] (]) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	********:I must have you confused with some other editor, sorry. Yes, an editor's history matters to an extent if counting !votes, but otherwise their comments rise or fall on the merits. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	*'''Support''' Whatever good AlbinoFerret does tending the electronic cigarette articles is outweighed by the persistent puffing-up of e-cigs as safer than apple pie. Since September 2014, AF has made 2000 talk page comments at the three e-cig articles, and 250 comments here at ANI—it's time to look for other topics. ] (]) 07:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Please provide the diffs where I said they are safe as apple pie or any place where I said they were completely safe. As for edit counts, anyone who looks at the logs knows I rarely make complete edits, I always correct them or add to them, on average taking 4 edits to make a comment. I have tried to preview more, but total edits show nothing. ] 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - '''Send to ArbCom''' - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by conduct issues (]) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest editors at a noticeboard establish consensus. ] (]) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{u|Robert McClenon}} i hear you that this may end up at Arbcom but that is a step of last resort. The way this place is set up we are meant to handle what we can at lower levels. I think there is a reasonable case for a topic ban for Albino - this is not about "loudest" but rather based on a clear focus on the behavior of one user. Focus (hard to maintain here, I know) is essential. Please reconsider. Thanks. ] (]) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' (Disclosure: AF has supported sanctions against me in another ongoing RFc. But I have supported a topic ban for AF on this topic on several previous occassions). The problem here is that many of the editors on this article are here to advocate for electronic cigarettes rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. I think AF is basically a good guy, but it is not healthy for the encyclopedia to have editors who spend 8 or more hours a day focused on making sure that a single article projects a specific POV. I'll add that I would support a similar topic ban for any editor for whom edits to electronic cigarette articles comprise more than 60% of their total edits over the last 3 months. Its not personal, its just that this article has attracted too many editors who are there to promote a specific POV. ] (]) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per the reasons stated by {{U|Levelledout}}. This is part content dispute and part piling on by those with a particular POV. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 15:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Not involved in the articles themselves or the content dispute aside from commenting on a few posts brought to ]. I wouldn't suggest any longer than a year for a ban though as it's generally better to give people a chance. The idea that this is just a content dispute so the behavior issues should be ignored is extremely disingenuous. There are also involved editors here who oppose the ban on grounds of it being a "content dispute", but behavior problems are behavior problems whether there is a content dispute or not. It's apparent there is a problem here with AF considering how much they focus on the topic. One could argue whether they fit the criteria of an ] or not with brief edits in a couple other articles, but there is definitely advocacy apparent here. Uninvolved editors here are seeing that problem, so I'd highly suggest weighing that when determining community consensus. I do agree with Robert McClenon that the topic will probably need to be considered at ArbCom at some point, but this is one user that keeps coming up and seems like it could be handled here. ] (]) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Very weak support''' There are probably enough behavioral problems amongst many editors that an arbitration case would be the best way to settle this. Otherwise, I think a topic ban is an acceptable bandaid, though I'd argue for a shorter duration, like 6 months, and revisit a more long term solution if the behavior resumes. ] 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' a topic ban of one year for Albino Ferret from discussing the subject of ]s on any page in the English Misplaced Pages. The reason is largely the one given by Bishonen (overly intense advocacy). Possibly one or more other users will need a topic ban too. ] (]) 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban of 3 months (preferred) or 1 year from articles on electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, but not indefinite. AF shows some signs of wanting to edit other articles, let's see some evidence of constructive contributions outside this topic area. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - This is clearly a content dispute with both sides unwilling to reach a compromise. The "evidence" presented by QuackGuru isn't very strong. One could also take Bishonen's argument of ] and apply it to QuackGuru, since his recent contributions suggest that he has been engaging in a campaign ''unfavorable'' to e-cigarettes. As far as I can tell, none of the diffs violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies. I do see a strong case for banning QuackGuru though: by QG is clearly targeted against AF's personal life, and the edit summary is not just inappropriate, but also inexplicably cruel and disgusting. -] 11:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: !vote above doesn't deal with Albino's behavior but rather attempts to focus on QG's- classic rhetorical move. This is a proposal about Albino's long term disruptive behavior as evidenced in the prior ANI (which lost focus) and additional diffs above. ] (]) 12:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: None of the diffs presented violate any of WP's policies, as far as I can tell. -] 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hat|again hatting squabble between 2 main antagonists here ] (]) 03:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	::No, this is not clearly a content dispute as A1candidate suggests. A1candidate is repeatedly making blanket reverts of reputable organizations and reviews. This disruption of blanket reverts by A1candidate should not be allowed to continue. A1candidate, I recommend you take a voluntary short-term topic ban from the page. A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts? ] (]) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::One might want to look at the size of the edits (18,711 characters) trying to edit in sources that were the topic of . That at the time was almost 1/2 the size of the existing page. The comments on the edits were directing people to the talk pages. This wasnt blanket removal, this was a few editors (QuackGuru, CFCF, and Cloudjpk) trying to force a mammoth edit on the page during a discussion of the sources used. Looking at makes it all the more clear. This is purely a content dispute. Where one side wants to discuss things, and others just want to get it in. ] 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Remember the talk page discussion? I wrote "User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your and there is a clear consensus for the ]." You repeatedly deleted a number of sources including reviews without any logical reason. User:AlbinoFerret, do you agree you are going to stop making blanket reverts? ] (]) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::@], please stop making these baseless accusations against me. I'm surprised that you would want to enforce a "voluntary short-term topic ban" on me, given that I have made minimal contributions to this the article so I am not sure what that would achieve. -] 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::*@QuackGuru, This is a constant problem, ]. I answered you why I thought a <b>press release</b> was not usable. and that sources that are ] should not be used for medical content. These sources (the subject of your second set of diffs) were already on a sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they are appropriate, this isnt removing content and blocking, but a discussion on the location ]. This is a fine point of WP, and I dont think you get. Your link to a blanket revert is part of the mammoth edit I posted on a reply ago, You made an almost 20000 character edit to a controversial page with no discussion, after planning it for almost a month in a sandbox without discussing it at any time. Again taking ] sources from the sister page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Where they have never been removed. If you look in the edit comments, you will see I quoted ] and noted that no discussions have happened. There is even started by me on the topic. ] 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	*'''Support topic ban''' having reviewed this whole mess over the last half hour. My only 'involvement' with e-cigarettes was thinking someone's looked hilarious at Wikimedia DC's GLAM bootcamp. As is generally the case with tbans, Albino would still be able to raise the situation before arbcom if desired. I don't think a time limit has a purpose since plenty of people just take an editing vacation until their tban expires and come back just as problematic as they were before, but AF could appeal it in the future after spending time productively contributing elsewhere on WP. ] (]) 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*Good point. I agree, indef with the option to appeal is better. ] &#124; ] 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC).
	::*Could you show me a single diff (as presented by QuackGuru) that actually violated an established guideline? -] 13:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::*See ] for a start. My own view is that ''both'' editors should be topic banned. You, yourself, could stand to read and reflect upon ]. ] (]) 15:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Just because two people are involved in a battle doesn't make both of them are aggressors. I do not see any single edit by AF violating a policy or guideline. -] 14:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' witchhunts and general attempts to silence opponenets. Someone needs to stand up to this nonsense.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 16:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::<s>distraction; not focused on Albino's behavior. ] (]) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)</s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))
	:::::How is resisting the POV-pushing by QuackGuru a form of advocacy? Please explain. -] 14:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban of at least a year. I am uninvolved with the topic. To the best of my recollection, I have never edited anything to do with electronic cigarettes, but I can recognize disruptive behavior in support of a POV when I see it. ] ] 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - I'm not convinced there have been any policy violations, or BF editing, or PAs that would constitute firm measures for behavioral issues. I see disagreement, and certainly hope disagreement or an opposing view doesn't warrant a block or ban these days. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 23:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::the difs for long term behavioral issues are clear. I do understand, Atsme, why you be sympathetic to someone opposing the application of MEDRS, since you would support having positive content on the cancer-fighting powers of ] in WP, using sources like naturalnews, per . You, at least have been doing that only on Talk, and have not been editing warring over it for months now, as Albino has. ] (]) 02:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::The only warring originates with you Jytdog, as demonstrated by your behavior here and now with a PA against me for expressing an opinion where I'm supposed to be expressing an opinion. Unfortunately, your biotech POV is imposed on editors wherever you go. Please try to understand WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' for the same reasons as the last forty-'leven times this topic-ban proposal has come up. Closing admin should pay careful attention to whether some of these !votes are from SPAs or near-SPAs and are possibly voting on subject matter as opposed to behavior. <code>]]</code> 03:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support, perhaps a month''', then another chance on a short leash. Per and others, does not (or will not) understand MEDRS; should by now. Not the only disruptive party but disruptive nonetheless. <s>(Note also , where he accused AF of lying about their disability. Should be an instant block for that, lengthened by aggravating circumstances: block log, experience).</s> <strike>'''Oppose'''> - Looks mainly like a content dispute to me, with the conduct issues on both sides -- no way can just one side of the e-cig wars could be accused of ] and ]. And lest process trump content, from what I can see the dangers are being exaggerated ''unduly and relative to conventional cigarettes'' by QuackGuru et. al., and AlbinoFerret and others are correct in trying to limit this POV-pushing. No, I don't like some of AlbinoFerret's exaggerations and misunderstandings of policy here (re which e.g. Jytdog has commented). But </strike> However, I see that at least two of the editors calling for a topic ban (and among the quickest to do so) are also heavily involved in the impasse/polarization in this topic area. All the kettles need to simmer down; suggest 1RR/week for all concerned or something like that. Mentorship/probation for AlbinoFerret on the stuff mentioned (especially MEDRS and WP:OPPONENT) when they come back. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC) <small>changed !vote, added a bit 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
	::{{u|Middle 8}} this thread is focused on AlbinoFerrets' behavior. Things like this end up at Arbcom when the community fails to manage them. The most common way the community fails is that it '''loses focus''' when discussing complex issues or disputes. (you have seen that happen, as when you brought an RfC/U against Quackguru). There is no doubt that AlbinoFerret has been a key participant in the longterm battleground. Many, many diffs showing that. The community ''can'' handle disputes like this, ''if it focuses''. If you want to start a thread on some other individual involved, please do so. But please do not distract from the issue at hand. Thanks. ] (]) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: I understand what you're saying, {{U|Jytdog}}. (And it's interesting how many of the editors who contributed so tenaciously to the loss of focus in the QG RfC are suddenly so able to stay focused on AF, yet lose focus when it comes to QG. One would ''almost'' think there was systemic bias afoot.) Looking at the merits: Which diffs? Going from QG's thread-starter, the two links to ANI threads are weak Re QG's other diffs: Just because AF removes stuff QG added is not prima facie evidence of misconduct -- far from it; I see a lot of UNDUE. AF's removing the WMA however is not good. And I see a pattern of OWN in both QG and AF, worse in QG. Is that it? Where can I find a good, concise summary of the most obvious diffs? Or maybe you or someone could just paste in the five worst ones? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::update: OK, although the evidence in the thread-starter is weak, I see more that you and others provided in the comments (yours: scrolling to: "Support topic ban - Albino has gone on a tear now..."). Having a look now. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: {{U|Jytdog}}, your example (of AF writing about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices) would indeed be a compelling instance of twisting a source (just as Mallexikon showed QG did with GERAC, which you were one of the only editors to grok). Except: AF explains (supported with diffs) that the passage they wrote was originally sourced to a different source that the passage indeed summarized accurately. (I don't care for his ABF-ing and calling your characterization "twisting" of what happened, but they wouldn't be the first to run hot under pressure on a drama board.) I'll keep looking. If there's a smoking gun -- besides fighting over including WMA, which is bad, but alone not imo worth a ban either -- I'm not seeing it. I see general TE (which is at least as bad with QG); I don't see it as over the top: is this a situation like QG where those who know AF well gnash their teeth in frustration but have so far failed to build a strong case? If not, can you help, and point me to the good evidence? It's a lot to go through. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::{{ec}}Thanks for considering more carefully. QG's first link above - Albino's contribs, demonstrate he is a SPA on e-cigarettes; this is not ambiguous. Per ], SPA editors are often agenda-driven. The next link is the old ANI case, and I see you are digging through that. I'll just pick one diff from there (of what are many) namely , where AF's edit notes was "emove older study that newer ones find answers to", but what we did, was remove a source (a review of the literature) that described the lack of good evidence for harm reduction and risks of e-cigs, dated 2013, and moving up 2 practice guidelines, one dated 2014 and the other dated 2013, which each recommend e-cigs for harm reduction. (note he left the 2013 ref... why, in his reasoning?) but in any case these are different kinds of sources (and there has been tension in project Medicine about how to WEIGHT practice guidelines vs reviews of the evidence) and they don't cancel each other out. The reasoning was bogus or incompetent, but the effect was to eliminate what AF calls "speculation" about the risks. That is the crux of his agenda in those articles. That ANI case was back in November. If you look at the next difs provided by QG, you will see that agenda being enacted in each edit. the "Environmental effects" section (mostly about risks) with edit note that "it is trivia"' removing facts about risks stated in WP's voice on the basis that they must be attributed (that is how ''pejoratively'' he has come to view discussion of risks - that it is so perjorative that it must be attributed)... etc. He is a disruptive and persistent presence. Hence the topic ban. Which looks like it will succeed, so far. I think it is objectively on point. ] (]) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::yeah the thing about lobbying was really frustrating. his original source] was an opinion piece and of course we prefer straight reporting over opinion pieces (he could have cited the opinion piece, attributing it, yes). but what we really got my goat was that the NYT reporting (the more reliable source) was unambiguous in emphasizing the victory of the e-cig lobbyists. so twisted. and adding the rhetorically self-righteous stuff about the COI of pharma with their lobbyists... when all lobbyists are nakedly self-interested. just... argh. on that whole thing. But of a piece with the pattern of relentless pro-e-cigarette editing. its the pattern. ] (]) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::OK, AF clearly doesn't/can't/won't grok MEDRS and there is a pattern. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hat|side discussion that went sideways and has become distracting in-fighting ] (]) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	::::::::{{u|Middle_8}} Am I perfect, No. Have I made mistakes, yes. Have I learned from them, I think I have. What you have here is two examples Jtydog has found. What he doesnt have is a pattern of me repeating those mistakes. The first diff is from October 2014, I had taken almost a year off from editing wikipedia, and almost 6 years since I was active. I had never editied a page with medical rules. I made a mistake and replaced a source and edited out a comment. I learned from that experience and have not done that again. As for using ] In November of that year, well the reason Jtydog can find it so quick is he was the one on me first. Was it a mistake to not research its use first? Yes, have I done the same things again? No. ] 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::But there is a pattern, cf. the diffs QG has at the top, and they're not only undue weight (though I agree this has been a problem and commend you for pushing back, within reason). QG's first diff after "AlbinoFerret deleted a number of reliable sources": ; those are MEDRS, and you really should know that by now. Sorry, but MEDRS is one thing I don't IAR on. Take a break (short I hope) and come back, and grok MEDRS and try to take to WP:OPPONENT to heart and lung. Wishing you well. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{u|Middle_8}} You may want to look closely at the World Lung Federation, at the top of the page is a gold bar clearly labelling it a press release. I am not that was against using ] sources for medical claims. There is even a ongoing . Until that edit they had only been used on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes sister page, both of which were one time part of the Health section of Electronic cigarette, split off at the same time by Doc James. Up until QG's edit there was a defacto standard/agreement of only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages (read the first link), thats why the RFC was started. ] 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::There '''NEVER''' was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing ] to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See ]. Also see ] for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. ], claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against ]. The RfC resulted in ]. See ].
	:::::::::::You also deleted other sources including a . After you could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate. See ]. You, ], and ] appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See ]. Your last edit to the safety page was to delete even more sources including a . So what is your reason to make a back to an old version while delete a number of sources including reviews? We want to know the ]. ] (]) 02:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The facts are clear as can be, if anyone looks at the article when it was . Before you started editing it on your own because of the activity on the main page kept us busy. You started adding non review quality sources for medical claims. You will notice that reviews and formal policy statements in peer reviewed journals (review quality) are all that existed. ] 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Let's review according to your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625
	:::::::::::::See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0
	:::::::::::::See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0
	:::::::::::::See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0
	:::::::::::::These sources are not reviews but they are reliable according to ]. ] (]) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	* '''Support''' indefinite topic ban from e-cig related articles. Per Bishonen, I see obvious advocacy. Assuming good faith, I feel that both the articles and AF would benefit from him spending his wiki-time on other topics for the foreseeable future. --] (]) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose action against AlbinoFerret or QuackGuru via ANI''' - This should go to Arbcom. Considering the e-cigarette dispute keeps popping up at ANI and has apparently gone on for so long now, and also considering there have been concerns raised regarding conduct of multiple users, this should go to arbcom where evidence can be carefully evaluated by those uninvolved. Seems binding solutions are needed at e-cegarette.--] (]) 23:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::<s>This thread is focused on AlbinoFerret's behavior. We ''can'' manage this at ANI if people bring clear cases and responders focus on the question at hand. Here, it is AF's behavior. Thanks. ] (]) 03:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) </s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))
	*'''Procedural oppose''' There are two main culprits in this current shitstorm. If the community lacks the ''cojones'' to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here. A lynch mob at AN/I probably won't do it on this occasion. --] (]) 07:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Question''': I see several people opposing a topic ban on the ground that the whole QuackGuru – AlbinoFerret thing should go to RFAR instead. Is anybody actually planning or working on an RFAR submission? ], ], ], for instance? This question is not meant as criticism, as nobody is obliged to spend time on anything on Misplaced Pages beyond what they want to, and filing RFAR's is a bugger, with the diffs and so on. Just, it would be convenient to know, and may affect the outcome of this thread. ] &#124; ] 12:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC).
	::I have the same question, and I don't think any of the "procedural opposers" have any intention of filing on ArbCom. I do not think this issue is a QG/AF issue, but rather the immensely problematic editing history of AlbinoFerret, whose entire edit history since September 2014 is the most egregious example of relentless disruptive ] advocacy I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban for at least six months to a year. His edits and endless disruptive discussions on the subject are simply far too POV and tendentious, disrupting the progress of the entire subject and the articles it encompasses. It does seem like blatant advocacy. ] (]) 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' This is a draconian solution at this point - especially since the air is rather full of smog because of misbehaviour by QG at this point. Suggest that such issues at that point be addressed to the Arbitration Committee, which will slow down everything in all likelihood. ] (]) 12:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::<s>The diffs are all presented and the question is clear, with respect to AlbinoFerret. Please take the time to focus on AF's behavior, which is the topic of this discussion. Thanks. There is a separate (malformed) section for QG above. ] (]) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) </s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))
	*'''{{Non-administrator observation|admin}}''' I am heavily ] in the topic at hand having spent a long time editing the e-cigarette article pretty heavily and having clashed with QG and AF. I think in the case of both editors the battleground that e-cig has become has brought out a negative side to their WP editing, in QG this is found in WP:OWN and IDHT, in AF it's more ADVOCACY and leaning towards SPA as it becomes more and more a focus of attention. The large proportion of AF's edits being on the Talk pages of e-cig articles rather than the article themselves reflects, in my eyes, his attempt to bring some form of consensus to article improvements rather than riding roughshod over the opinions and policies of WP. A topic ban, in the short term, may make things better. I certainly think AF taking a vacation from the article may be good for AF's stress levels. But the root problem is that e-cig, and the daughter articles, are battlegrounds where a lot of people are shouting, and nobody's listening. I don't know whether ArbCom can do something to help in this matter but banning AF from the page will not reduce the amount of problems there. ] (]) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per InfiniteBratwurst. I used to be involved, but haven't edited any of the articles in several months. I've been slightly active on their talk pages, though. ] (]) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::<s>Infinitebratwurst's !vote was not based on looking at the diffs of AlbinoFerret's behavior and thinking about them in light of PAG, so that !vote should not count for the closer, and neither should this one. ] (]) 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)</s> (striking, should not be commenting like this. ] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC))
	*'''Note.''' It's been a problem previous times that this has come up that those involved in the dispute separate into obvious camps but are pretty vocal. Out of curiosity I checked the history of the users posting in this section and their edit count on whatever e-cig talk page had the highest edits (doesn't indicate time of involvement):
	::AlbinoFerret: 1641; QuackGuru: 630; Cloudjpk: <s>Not available but has edited at the article a bit</s> 141.; Doc James: 490; BMK: 0; CFCF: 151; Jytdog: 91; Bishonen: 0; Levelledout: 233; InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits); Johnuniq: 13; Robert McClenon: 0; Formerly 98: 148; Winkelvi: 0; Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies); AniMate: 0; Cardamon: 0; JzG: 0 ; A1candidate: 22; Kevin Gorman: 0; Two kinds of pork: 0; Cullen328: 0; Atsme: 0; Zad68: 203; Middle 8: 0; RexxS: 0; BoboMeowCat: 0; John: 0; Softlavender: 0; Collect: 0; EllenCT: 84.
	:Obviously I'm not suggesting to ignore those involved, but I always lose track of who's actually been involved in the article whenever this comes up here, at RSN, etc. Figured it might be helpful for others trying gauge the situation too. If not, just more text and numbers for the wall. ] (]) 22:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Here's the same data presented in a different way:
	::
	::{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
	::*AlbinoFerret: 1641
	::*QuackGuru: 630
	::*Doc James: 490
	::*Levelledout: 233
	::*Zad68: 203
	::*CFCF: 151
	::*Formerly 98: 148
	::*Cloudjpk: 141 (note: fixed)
	::*Jytdog: 91 (note: fixed)
	::*EllenCT: 84
	::&nbsp;
	::*A1candidate: 22
	::*Johnuniq: 13
	::*InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits)
	::*Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies)
	::&nbsp;
	::{{col-break|gap=4em}}
	::*AniMate: 0
	::*Atsme: 0
	::*BoboMeowCat: 0
	::*BMK: 0
	::*Bishonen: 0
	::*Cardamon: 0
	::*Collect: 0
	::*Cullen328: 0
	::*John: 0
	::*JzG: 0
	::*Kevin Gorman: 0
	::*Middle 8: 0
	::*RexxS: 0
	::*Robert McClenon: 0
	::*Softlavender: 0
	::*Two kinds of pork: 0
	::*Winkelvi: 0
	::{{col-end}}
	::
	:: ] (]) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, I wanted to try to keep it as condensed as possible, but I normally don't tinker with tables here, so I didn't think of that. ] (]) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Wonder why you left Cloudjpk's data out? They have 112 edits (80.576% of mainspace edits) to e-cig articles and 176 edits (100% of talk space edits) to those articles talks. In total 83.965% of Cloudjpk's edits have been to e-cigarette articles. Significantly more than even AlbinoFerret. ] (]) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::The edit count cool was acting really wonky when I tried to search Cloudjpk's history. It essentially said the user had no edits whatsoever yesterday, which I knew was incorrect. Today it looks like it is working now. No idea what causes that, but I've heard to tool can act funny sometimes. I've updated the info on my post and made the minor change to ] table as well. ] (]) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I am involved in the articles, but not to the extent the raw numbers show. On average it takes 4 or more edits on a comment for me to get it right. I seldom make a perfect edit or comment and leave. Any view of the histories will show this. I think that numbers only tell part of the story. ] 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::You are not "involved" in the articles, you are '''''<u>***INVOLVED***</u>''''' with the articles. Articles on e-cigarettes make up the first (] - 466 edits, 55.47% of your total article edits), second (] - 82 edits, 9.7%} and fifth (] - 23 edits, 2.7%) in the list of articles you've edited most, making up a total of 67.97% of your article edits. The list of article '''''talk''''' pages you've edited has ] as #1, with 1641 edits, 69.35% of your talk page edits, ] as #2 (293, 12.38%), ] as #5 (72, 3.04%), for a total of '''''85.08%''''' of your talk page edits (that includes 7 other edits on the subject in archives.)<p>These numbers -- 67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits -- most certainly live in SPA territory. It's clear what subject you're here to edit, and crystal what your position is on it. '''''That's''''' the "obvious advocacy" that several very experienced editors have commented on, and '''''that's''''' why a topic ban is appropriate. ] (]) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I disagree with your label as a SPA. I tend to post more to articles I'm interested in, nothing strange there. Your raw numbers tell nothing and I disagree with the spin. I would also like to point out that slightly over half of my editing is on talk pages. Discussing and trying to make the articles better. If you take into account the number of edits I make to a specific edit or comment, it isnt that large. You seem to have some attraction to this section, and seem to post an awful lot here. ] 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::My calculations show that AlbinoFerret has made over 2890 edits on the topic of e-cigs to '''talk pages''' (or noticeboards) since 30 September 2014—over 17 talk-page edits per day for 164 days. That is beyond ''enthusiasm'' and is unhealthy for other editors, particularly in a contentious topic. ] (]) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::How many of those were to the same comment or edit? How many editors you are comparing me to are disabled and sit at their computer because they cant easily leave the house? ] 01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::@AlbinoFerret: If QuackGuru cannot, and '''''should not''''', bring up your physical status in his arguments, then '''''you''''', also, should not cite it as a mitigating factor -- not that it makes any difference, really. Presumably you have the same difficulties while editing an article or talk page on e-cigarettes as you do when editing an article or talk page on some other subject, so the '''''<u>percentages</u>''''' I cited above, which are '''''not''''' "raw numbers" -- '''67.07% of article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits on the subject of electronic cigarettes''' -- have '''''nothing whatsoever to do with your physical state'''''. Please don't bring up that red herring again. ] (]) 02:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::Thats wrong, QuackGuru made harassing statements about my disability. But its a fact of life, one you obviously dont want discussed because it shows that your numbers have no basis for comparison. What you have are large numbers and innuendo. Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.
	::::::::::They are raw numbers because they dont take into account the number of edits I make to the same comment or edit. Your comments are bordering very close on harassment if not going over the line by trying to say that my physical status has no bearing on my editing here. It is something you cant possibly have knowledge of.
	::::::::::Number of posts do not equal advocacy. ] 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Do you not understand percentages? Unless you edit e-cig articles differently than you edit all other articles, the numbers are '''''<u>not</u>''''' raw, they're relative to your overall output. ] (]) 04:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Since you ignored this, I will ask a second time. <b>Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.</b> Number of posts do not equal advocacy ] neither do percentages. ] 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Actually, percentages are a good measure of advocacy (and SPA) by showing that an editor is focusing too much on one topic. Using a percentage would account for your tendency to make copy edits and simply show what area you edit the most relative to your total contributions here. There's really no arguing with those numbers. Physical disability should be playing no role in this specific conversation because it should not be making you focus so much on one topic like this. It's one thing to have a lot of time available (which we've discussed ), but it's that your time is concentrated into one area that is the problem people have repeatedly brought up here. Maybe you're not seeing that, but BMK is actually being pretty well reasoned above. ] (]) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I see that I am editing an article that is interesting to me, and that some people want me to edit other articles more. Where might I find the policy or guideline that says you must edit x number of articles? I dont think editing articles that dont intrest me is something that should be forced. When I find a subject I find interesting, I edit the article. But I think you are misapplying advocacy. Advocacy isnt posting to much to one article. ] 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	Gimme a break, {{U|AlbinoFerret}}. A lot of my edits consist of correcting my own typos or copy editing my own comments to make my thoughts clearer. That is common. But any objective uninvolved editor can look at the totality of my edits, and they will conclude that I am a generalist editor. Then, they can look at the totality of ''your'' edits, and they will see with crystal clarity that you are here to advance a certain point of view about e-cigarettes. Please do not try to deny what is obvious to any intelligent objective person. ] ] 02:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:No, they show I post a lot. I have been editing Bitcoin for a month and have made 216 edits to the page and talk page. About 7 a day, when I am interested in a topic, I post and discuss it and try and improve the article. I am not here to advance a specific point of view on e-cigarettes, and the number of posts doesnt prove that. (added afterwards - This no intelligent person is starting to sound like No True Scotsman argument) ] 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I'm really not interested in marginal topics like e-cigarettes and bitcoins, so I don't feel like reading this ''megillah''. Can you show me a link where QuackGuru harassed you about your stated handicap? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Since you asked, its easly found under his topic with plenty of discussion on the topic, but you can find it . ] 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::@Bugs: See the section above this. My synopsis: QuackGuru make a remark that he absolutely shouldn't have, was roundly criticized for it by editors from all sides, and got warned by an admin who told him if he did it again he'd be blocked. The End.<p>Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret, inserted a new section calling for QuackGuru to be blocked '''''above''''' the topic-ban section, out of chronological order (so innocent editors would come across it first) and have been trying their best ever since to whip up a frenzy to block QG, not only because he is one of the stalwart editors preventing fringe science from infecting WP, but because it helps keep people from focusing on the topic ban necessary to prevent AlbinoFerret from continuing his advocacy for e-cigarettes. Up there (the section above) is a sideshow, down here is the real deal. ] (]) 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::QuackGuru's comment was rude and condescending, and shouldn't have been said. But it's possible he's thinking back on some users we've had who claimed to be handicapped (ItsLassieTime comes to mind) and it was one of that prolific sockpuppeteer's many lies. So it's not unreasonable to have suspicions like that. But it's best to keep those suspicions to oneself until or if an appropriate time arises. However, disabled users shouldn't expect any special treatment, and in fact they probably ought not even bring up the subject. "TMI". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 08:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, it's better for people to keep unsavory information like that in the closet.<sup>''<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki>''</sup> Or, wild idea, we could afford people with disabilities ] (as is done in many civilized places to varying degrees) and not be dicks to them, including not engaging in "". --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::It's not about keeping "unsavory" information "in the closet". It's about not using one's handicap as an excuse. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::If I recall correctly, {{U|AlbinoFerret}} didn't bring up his disability in such a way as to suggest he should be excused for anything. If I recall correctly, QC did bring up AFs disability, and did it in a manner that was intended to discredit AF, distract, and wave a red herring like a giant flag at a sporting event. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'm not saying that, that's just an example or scenario that can happen and it's why users ought not be bragging/complaining about their handicaps. QG seems to have seen something in Ferret's comments that suggested he might not actually be handicapped, and the memories of abusive users like ItsLassieTime may have overwhelmed QG's good sense at that point. There are better ways to explore that question than QG did. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::I saw what happened when it happened. QG did it to discredit AF. What's more, AF has never "bragged" about having a disability. It doesn't matter what QG saw/thought/or had a memory of. His comments were beyond the pale and WAY out of line. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Actually, AF has been mentioning their disability in what appears to be justification for the editing habits not too far above. . ] (]) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hat|reason=off-topic discussion of User:QuackGuru; belongs in subsection above}}
	:{{tq|Oh, wait a minute... the e-cig and fringe science advocates seized on it as a sideshow to distract everyone from the proposed topic ban against AlbinoFerret}} Have you actually read the discussion above? QG is a problem editor. People seized the discussion of a problem with QG to advocate trying to fix the problem with QG, some people leapt on the one comment (That I personally think should have been a straight 48 hour block but it's now dealt with) Others are discussing his edit history and while there may be some fringe science and e-cig advocates in there, there are also editors who want to see articles present accurate sourced information in readable English rather than garbled walls of repetitive text. The original post was about QG. QG tried to use boomerang to distract from the issue of his own editing behaviour.] (]) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: I've concluded that the best way to have any productive discussion of QG's conduct -- or that of any disruptive editor who is perceived as being on the "right" side of content disputes -- is for '''''anybody perceived as being a fringe-sympathizer to refrain from calling for sanctions'''''. <small>(Sorry for shouting in bold itals; I didn't want BMK to feel alone in using that style ;-).)</small> Go ahead and collect diffs and present them; just keep it as uncomplicated, neutrally-presented and red-herring free as possible, and let others decide what to do with it (and needless to say, let someone else initiate the process: this needs to be done properly and not rushed). That will pre-empt the incorrect/disingenuous/GAME-y objection that "it's just fringe-pushers who want him sanctioned".
	:: AFAIK this has never been tried before. There are, IMO/IME, just enough objective editors on WP that ''some'' will still look at the evidence fairly and !vote accordingly. And if none do, it can be fairly assumed that it really ''is'' only fringe-pushers who want sanctions. In QG's case it has always, from the very beginning, been about 50% perceived-fringe editors and 50% perceived-neutral ones calling for sanctions.
	:: It really is true that the louder perceived-fringers complain, the stronger QG's position becomes, and this will only get worse with time (as will QG's shenanigans as he becomes emboldened: we're already seeing this with five warnings in three months). The community really should have learned this in the past from similarly disruptive/woo-bashing editors (whom I'm not going to mention by name now because they're more or less behaving themselves). The philosophically-inclined should ponder ]. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	*Just a reminder, '''''this''''' section is about '''''imposing a topic ban on AlbinoFerrett''''' due to his obvious advocacy in the '''''67.07% of his article edits and 85.08% of article talk page edits''''' on the subject of electronic cigarettes. ] (]) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Since you ignored this above, I will ask a third time. <b>Please point me to the policy or guideline that speaks on the number of posts one is allowed to make.</b> Number of posts do not equal advocacy ] neither do percentages. But since you like percentages, the edits above that QuackGuru posted to try and show a problem <b>account for only 0.02% of my edits to e-cigarette articles.</b>. Those edits were reasoned, discussed, and not the product of advocacy. ] 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban. Even ] that AlbinoFerret's conduct is not advocacy, the edits linked above and conduct in this discussion suggest that some distance from this topic may have a healing effect on someone with a lot of energy and dedication to give to editing Misplaced Pages. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban as a clear example of persistent advocacy. Moral support for whoever has to read all the way to the end of this whole huge mess of a thread. ] (]) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support topic ban''', for a month at minimum, for advocacy and so that AlbinoFerret can move on from this and contribute to the project. All the time we are wasting arguing here is time that we are not spending helping Misplaced Pages expand. Based on his actions and the personal attacks made over this, I don't think that AlbinoFerret can contribute in a neutral way to the E-cigarettes article, for now at least. ] (]) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' (involved editor) Originally i intended not to comment, because the pile-up of involved editors was already bad. But now it seems that i have to: By !voting to topicbanning AF, on the premises presented, we are creating an environment where editors will not dare to disagree with editors like QG, no matter how wellfounded the arguments to disagree are, or how little QG actually responds to good faith objections on the talk-page. We are also sending the signal that: Do not dare to only edit areas that you are interested in, because you will get banned. Do remember that being an SPA is not against policy, being interested in a topic is also not against policy..... Because no matter how we slice and dice it, the main argument here is not that AF is breaking our editing policies, or his POV, but instead that he is not conforming to some editors view of how multifacetted you must be to pass the bar. This is not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit anymore ... it is the encyclopedia for people who conform to certain characteristics. --] 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	::To clarify: I do not see policy violations to back up a ban. --] 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hat|hatting discussion no longer relevant with indef blocking of sock ] (]) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	:::''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	::::You've only been here since December. How do you know anything about someone's alleged "long history" of ''anything?'' Unless you used to edit under a different ID? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	::::::Since you have no more than 100 edits in your two-plus months here, many of which appear to be advocating for e-cigarettes, I assume the rest of your time here has been to try to figure out how to get rid of a user who stands in your way? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	::::::::I'll take that as an affirmative. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	::::::::::Keep telling yourself that. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::''comment removed per WP:EVADE''
	{{hab}}
	*] repeatedly added nowiki tags to the 9 times. The first nowiki tag was on . The last nowiki tag was on . Not sure why this happened. ] (]) 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::You might There is a bug in the visual editor. One of the reasons I stopped using it was because it was so buggy on my Linux distribution. If you look at the history instead of doing a date to date search, each of those edits comes up with the "Visual editor" tag on the edit comments. There is nothing between those tags, its basically a tag and another closing tag with no text. This is a AGF problem, nothing between the tags, not asking me about it anywhere, and it the result of a bug in the editor, but right away jumping to negative motives. ] 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{out}} Here's something interesting. If we accept for the moment, for the sake of argument, the premise that "involved" editors, from both camps, are too prejudiced to cast a !vote in a neutral fashion, then we should look more closely at the opinions of the presumably '''''uninvolved''''' editors, the ones who have no or very few edits to the e-cig talk page.
	As our data source we can Use Kingofaces43 list above, and add to it the four !votes which have been posted since: Mendaliv (0 edits), Opabinia regalis (0), Iwilsonp (0) and Kim D. Petersen (780). We throw out all the high-numbered editors, which leaves us with thisL
	{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
	::*A1candidate: 22 - Oppose
	::*Johnuniq: 13 - Support
	::*<s>InfiniteBratwurst: 10 (relatively new w/ 77 total edits) - Oppose</s> (struck per ])
	::*Kingofaces43: 3 (RFC and RSN post replies) - Support
	::*AniMate: 0 - Very weak support
	::*Atsme: 0 - Oppose
	::*BoboMeowCat: 0 - Oppose via ANI
	::*BMK: 0 - Support
	::*Bishonen: 0 - Support
	::*Cardamon: 0 - Support
	::*Collect: 0 - Oppose
	::*Cullen328: 0 - Support
	{{col-break|gap=4em}}
	::*Iwilsonp: 0 - Support
	::*John: 0 - Procedural oppose
	::*JzG: 0 - Support
	::*Kevin Gorman: 0 - Support
	::*Mendaliv: 0 - Support
	::*Middle 8: 0 - Support
	::*Opabinia regalis: 0 - Support
	::*RexxS: 0 - Support
	::*Robert McClenon: 0 - Oppose - Send to ArbCom
	::*Softlavender: 0 - Support
	::*Two kinds of pork: 0 - Oppose
	::*Winkelvi: 0 - no !vote
	{{col-end}}
	*Oppose - 8, including three based on procedure or venue
	*Support - 15, includng one "very weak support"
	So of the presumably uninvolved editors who !voted, 65% (15/23) are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. If you want to throw out all the editors with any edits at all, that takes away 2 supports and 2 opposes (13/19) for a 68%. True, one of the supports is "very weak", but bear in mind that three of the opposes are based on procedure or venue, and not on the merits of the case. Throw those out (the "very weak" and the procedurals) and you've got 80% (12/15).
	So it seems anyway you slice it, the uninvolved editors are in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret.
	But what about an overall state of the discussion, counting '''''all''''' editors whether they're involved or not? Then you've got 21 support !votes and 13 oppose !votes. That's a 62% majority in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret, not all that different from the percentage of the uninvolved editors.
	Of course, the closing admin -- and I really think it had better be an admin in this case -- doesn't count the votes (or, at least, doesn't '''''just''''' count the votes), they evaluate the strength of the various arguments as well. I'm well aware of that, so there's no need to remind me. But the count is still helpful as it gives a thumbnail representation of the state of play at this moment. ] (]) 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*InfiniteBratwurst has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of FergusM1970. Therefore, these results change:
	::*All uninvolved editors: 68% (15/22) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret
	::*All editors commenting: 64% (21/33) in favor of a topic ban for AlbinoFerret
	::With no new recent comments, I believe it's coming to the point where an uninvolved admin should closely evaluate this sub-thread and determine whether a consensus exists for levying a topic ban concerning electronic cigarettes on AlbinoFerret, due to his obvious advocacy in favor of a pro-e-cig POV. ] (]) 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	There is '''strong support for a topic ban'''. Numerous editors support a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. For example, please read the comments above by ], ], ], ], ] , ], ], ], ], ], ] ], ], ], ]. Only a voluntary break from the topic area is against the community consensus. See ]. ] (]) 21:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:@QuackGuru, You've had your say. Please don't ]. I took the liberty of removing the <nowiki><big></nowiki> tags from your comment. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Notification'''. I started an ArbCom discussion since this is going nowhere. See ]. ] (]) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	* QuarkGuru archived this sub-thread, but I have re-opened it. Although he started this, it is not his property, and the views of many editors, both pro- and con- have been expressed, and should be evaluated collectively by an admin. Also, QG has a conflict of interest in that he opened an arbitartion request, which is unlikely to be heard as long as these threads are open. ] (]) 00:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	=== KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret ===
	{{hat|1=Not helpful <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	:Of course . That's because ] has also made many controversial edits to the ] page. Let's review some of KimDabelsteinPetersen's recent edits.
	: This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations. See ]. The sources are reliable per ]. See ]. The sources are reliable per ] according to the current discussion.
	: This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations again.
	: This edit mainly deleted text from a formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal.
	: This edit mainly deleted text from a review and text from reputable organizations.
	: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ].
	: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''.
	: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''.
	: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. KimDabelsteinPetersen . KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you also deleting a lot of sources against ]? shows AlbinoFerret is making many counterproductive edits and deleting of a lot of reliable sources. KimDabelsteinPetersen is also deleting a lot of reliable sources which suggests he/she is promoting a certain favorable ] for e-cigs. Should KimDabelsteinPetersen also be topic banned? KimDabelsteinPetersen has earned a topic ban from the e-cig pages IMO. Does the community prefer a topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen for '''6 months or one year''', an '''indef topic ban''', or '''just a warning''' or '''no action'''? ] (]) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Can I assume from the title, that is "KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret", that the intention is to punish KDP for voting the wrong way by topic banning them? There is no wrongdoing in the diffs you've provided I'm afraid, most of them appear to be reverts on the basis that ongoing talk page discussions, RFCs, have not yet concluded or principles such as ], all valid ones of course.] (]) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret because he/she is also making a number of controversial edits, including deleting numerous reliable sources that he thinks was okay to delete at the time. But it is not reasonable to continue to delete pertinent information about of the safety of e-cigarettes. Both and are the main problem editors IMO. There is also a discussion at ]. No reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources after over a week. ] (]) 21:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	* Kim stated her "involvement" at the very beginning of her "oppose". I don't see what's to be gained by this sub-thread. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	=== Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles ===
	''Proposed:'' The community authorizes discretionary sections for all articles related to ]s, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page banning, topic banning, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocking any editor so warned. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
	* '''Support''' as proposer, and thanks for Hasteur for the verbage. This dispute has devolved, and would benefit from some extra attention to get it sorted out. DS should expedite this process, and, in my mind, is sorely needed. ]! 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Does Hasteur support this too? I would think so, given that he edited it for you, but I would like to check. ] (]) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::No, no. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I just cribbed his wording from the Gamergate community sanctions. I didn't intend to imply his endorsement. ]! 21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as this is not the solution to the ongoing deletion of reliable sources. Admins don't need this to topic ban an editor anyhow. ] (]) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposed, as E-cigs are in any case a contentious enough subject that this kind of dispute is liable to flare up between another few editors (not just QuackGuru and AlbinoFerret) in the future, and this would let an admin deal with it without this sort of mess all over ANI. ] (]) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Although I suspect it will end up at ] before it's over. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Unfortunately this is unlikely to lead to anything substantial. There are a number of ] or near-SPA accounts involved and this would only limit the time needed to address issues, but the problem would still remain. -- ] ] (]) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - The proposed discretionary sanctions could be avoided with an immediate block of QuackGuru for multiple counts of disruptive behavior in the above sections. If discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is likely that QG will look for a new topic area to disrupt and antagonize a new group of editors before being brought back to this noticeboard, as has happened countless times in the past. -] 22:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' We have proof of meat puppetry among these articles. We know that the e-cig manufacturers are unhappy with the medical community's position on the known and unknown health effects and safety of e-cig. One advocacy group has contacted my university to attack me personally. We need to make sure that we uphold high quality sources. Not sure if this will make that easier or harder since some involved are using throw away accounts / SPA. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Do you have proof that AlbinoFerret, or any of QG's perceived opponents, have engaged in meat puppetry? Most probably not. -] 22:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Yes ] linked to his twitter feed which include his efforts at meat puppetry ] (] · ] · ]) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Question''' - I only recall discretionary sanctions being put in place by ArbCom, I can't recall a solo admin or the community doing it. Can someone provide a precedent where the community placed discretionary sanctions on a subject? (Not that the lack of precedent necessarily means it can't be done, but it would certainly make it easier to stand up, should this receive a consensus.) ] (]) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Sure thing! You're looking for ]. ]! 01:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thanks! That was very helpful. ] (]) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	*<s>Oppose</s> per CFCF. ] (]) 05:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*'''Support''' - After careful reconsideration of the issue, I am changing my !vote based primarily on the comment of Robert McClenon and some of the information provided by Bishonen. I still believe, though, that a topic ban for AlbinoFerret would be the best first step in guaranteeing that the e-cig articles are balanced and NPOV, which to me is the primary concern, more so than the "atmosphere" of the editing environment. ] (]) 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Question''' - if editors misbehave despite warnings, then uninvolved admins can sanction them anyway, right? -- so what does this add? Is it a way of saying "don't worry, sanction as needed, it won't be seen as controversial"? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Not exactly. For example, without discretionary sanctions (DS), administrators lack the authority to topic ban editors, and may only block editors in a limited set of circumstances outlined in the blocking policy. Once DS are authorized, administrators are given much more latitude to enforce community norms around a particular topic. Furthermore, sanctions placed under DS cannot be undone without a clear community consensus (or a motion of the Arbitration Committee), while ordinary blocks can be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. I think that about sums it up. ]! 14:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: ], for my money the big difference discretionary sanctions make is that they allow a single uninvolved admin to ''topic ban'' an editor (on their own ''discretion'', hence "discretionary" sanctions). Much easier than schlepping the person to ANI and trying to raise consensus for a topic ban, indeed perhaps a bit too easy in this case. I'm dubious about instituting DS here. Admins should probably be more ready to ''block'' disruptive editors in the area, something they can do without DS. (Take that as a weak '''oppose'''.) ] &#124; ] 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC).
	*'''Support''' - There have been too many threads about ], and community discretionary sanctions will work as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions to get a few contentious editors off the article. If the community doesn't do this, the ArbCom eventually will, because this will eventually go to the ArbCom if the community doesn't impose general sanctions. ] (]) 14:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per Robert McClenon's arguments above. I still think that ANI is a fine place to bring clear, well-formed cases for anything related to these articles, but these sanctions should help calm things down. Good thinking! ] (]) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' it can only improve the environment. All too often things are reremoved or readded without discussion, and discussions are being ignored or answered with non-arguments. And i'm not talking about a particular "side" in this. If the article is to be improved, then it will require editors to cooperate, and seek consensus, instead of acting on their own, and a strong oversight may just force editors to do so. May end up in some blocks/bans - but if that is what it takes, then that is the way forward. --] 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''<s> Weak support partially agree with KimDabelsteinPetersen. I also think that anything is likely to be better than some of stuff that has been going on at ANI recently which doesn't reflect well on any of the involved parties. However</s> Striking my initial weak support for an oppose in light of comments from ] and ]. Was never quite sure about this, but in light of those comments I agree and don't think that this would be the best way to proceed. Whilst there are probably one or two problem editors out there that no doubt need dealing with, I'm no longer convinced that ANI does not remain the better method for doing this. I also would have thought that getting the involved parties to work together would be just as important. Which would perhaps mean article restrictions in addition to editor restrictions such as a 1RR rule for instance.] (]) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Notification'''. I started an ArbCom discussion. See ]. ] (]) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' E-cigarette is a battleground. It will remain so for a long time because of content disagreements and lack of discussion. The main article has been protected multiple times. When its protected very little discussion happens, and edits are stockpiled for the next round of problems. ] 03:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per {{U|AlbinoFerret}}. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Comment''' - Unless the tide changes, it looks as if this thread is moving towards a consensus in favor of community-imposed discretionary sanctions. I would like, however, to address '''''the closer of this thread''''': please do not be tempted to think that closing this in favor of that consensus -- if that is what you find -- obviates the results of the sub-thread above concerning a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That is, if there is a consensus in that thread for a topic ban -- and I believe there is -- it should be enacted, whether or not discretionary sanctions are approved or not in this thread. Failing to impose a topic ban if there is a consensus for one simply puts off the problem to another time, and possibly yet another repeat of this discussion. True, discretionary sactions would allow an individual admin to impose a topic ban on AlbinoFerret if the admin thought it was required, but the mere '''''possibility''''' of that occurring in the future should not negate a community consensus for a topic ban for AlbinoFerret here and now. ] (]) 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</s>
	:*Moot, since the topic ban thread was closed first. ] (]) 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. The difficulties with these articles are intractable at the moment and the editing environment is uncollaborative. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions will be insufficient, because of all the AGF and second chances and other handwringing that drives away editors with good judgment and maintains our high levels of Dunning-Kruger effect across the encyclopaedia, but they're probably better than nothing.—] <small>]/]</small> 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Question'''. Where do editors report an editor who is causing problems when the community-imposed discretionary sanctions are enacted? ] (]) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*My understanding is that '''''any''''' admin can impose sanctions under DS, so I suppose you can either bring it to an admin of your choice, or you can post a thread on AN/I. ] (]) 20:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::*Maybe this question was asked before about sanctions in general. There might be some specific guidelines to follow. ] (]) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Notifications & sanctions will be logged on a subpage of ]. Since any uninvolved admin can impose sanctions, you can bring it up here or ask an admin directly. ]! 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. This has been a battleground for months, and both sides are entirely convinced that they alone bear The Truth&trade;. Add the toxic influence of ]s and a combination of vested financial interests, an intersection with pro-cannabis activism and outright craziness out there in the real world, and you have a perfect recipe for never-ending drama. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	==Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.==
	{{user6|Wtshymanski}} is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a in 2012.
	Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert ''any and all'' edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are ] edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those ''from the past three weeks''.
	'''17th Feb'''
	IP edit:
	Wtshymanski revert:
	:This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be.
	'''18th Feb'''
	IP edit:
	Wtshymanski revert:
	:This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "''light emitting'' diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example).
	'''25th Feb'''
	IP edit:
	Wtshymanski revert:
	:The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it ''as he is perfectly entitled to do''. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The ] procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.)
	'''25th Feb'''
	IP edit:
	Wtshymanski revert:
	:The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the ] policy to be a ] edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two.
	'''2nd Mar'''
	IP edit:
	Wtshymanski revert:
	:Again a potentially ] edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, {{u|Andy Dingley}} independently made the same point on . Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it.
	It is known that Misplaced Pages is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is ''not'' the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's
	IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty.
	As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions . This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. ] (]) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Totally agree with {{u|DieSwartzPunkt}} The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called.
	:::I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. –&nbsp;''] ] ]'' 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	* What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What ''administrator action'' is desired here though?
	: Once upon a time we had ] and ]. Neither of them were likely to be effective (] wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters.
	: WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. ] (]) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Not proven''' The accusation is:
	:: ''"Wtshymanski is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering-based articles that he routinely watches."'' (typo and punctuation corrected)
	: and, doubling down, just in case we might have thought the meaning was open to interpretation:
	:: ''"Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert ''any and all'' edits made by IP address editors."'' (emphasis was in the original)
	: But a quick perusal of the history of each of the pages diff'd above will show many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski. Therefore the claim of "any" is specious. Some were let stand, some were reverted by others, "others" not excepting Andy Dingly and DieSwartzPunkt. There are also many edits by IPs that were reverted by W. with completely defensible reasons and edit summaries.
	: Perhaps W. is too quick to assume that IPs' edits are wrong. (From my own experience, given the number of IPs' edits I've corrected that ''were'' wrong, this would not be an unreasonable bias on W.'s part.) I believe AD and DSP are similarly too eager to find fault with W.'s edits, and this patently absurd accusation of "any and all" is a result. ] (]) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: ''"many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski."''
	:: So because he didn't get ''all'' of them, his behaviour over the ones that he did revert should be discounted?
	:: This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits. It's about his assumption that for any anon edit he reverts (frequently a justified revert) ''he assumes that it's deliberate vandalism'', and he assumes this because of who made it, not the quality of the edit. ] (]) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: ''"This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits."'' That's odd, because that's ''exactly'' what <strike>you</strike> DSP said it was about. If it's really about his over-use of the vandalism charge, then <strike>you</strike> DSP should have said that from the beginning. And then ''every'' one of <strike>your</strike> DSP's your diffs needs to show an edit summary by W. with a demonstrably unjust accusation of vandalism, or they don't support your position. If it turns out that a clear majority of W's edits to IPs' edits do not include an unjust accusation of vandalism, your case gets rather weak. ] (]) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::: Jeh, I know that you're just about the only friend Wtshymanski has round here, so it's not surprising that you've rushed to defend him. However please actually read this post first. I didn't raise this. I haven't posted ''any'' diffs, so I don't know which diffs you're complaining about. Mind, it would have to be very blinkered to not see the problem with what he's doing. ] (]) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: Correct you are. I missed the correct attribution among all the rest of the periodic Wtshymanski pile-on. I have edited my above accordingly. But as for your "I don't know which diffs" claim, there is only one set associated with the complaint. So I think that if you were to hazard a guess as to which diffs in this talk page section I'm referring to, you'd either be correct, or you'd have to pretend to be a complete idiot. And we all know you are not that, so please drop the "I don't know what you're referring to" act. You're smarter than that, and I'd thank you to assume that I'm smart enough to not buy it. ] (]) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::You claimed that Wtshymanski had allowed some IP edits to stand, but failed to provide any diffs. In the short discussion that I had on this at Wtshymanski's talk page, he made the same claim. He then obliged with a single diff that supported that position. ''But he had to go all the way back to 2007 to find it.'' There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand, but as they are obvious corrections of errors, reverting them would be vandalism in itself (though as in case four above, that is not always an obstacle). ] (]) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: Oh, please. You took that "2007" bit seriously?
	::::: So. "There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand." Your words. Doesn't that rather contradict your accusation? Do I have to quote it yet again, to remind you of what it was? Do you understand what it takes to disprove a universal claim? It takes one counterexample. One.
	::::: The first diff above is from ]. From the first page of 50 edits, working from the bottom (I am not counting IP edits that were clearly vandalism, either reverted by W. or otherwise):
	:::::: IP made stylistic wording changes to picture caption. W. did not revert.
	:::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.
	:::::: IP wikilinked ]. W. did not revert.
	:::::: IP made minor grammar correction. W. did not revert.
	:::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.
	:::::: minor word correction by IP. Nobody reverted.
	:::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.
	:::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski.
	:::::: IP added redlinks. Rv by Andy Dingley.
	:::::: vandalism by IP (added blank lines). Rv by someone else.
	:::::: vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot.
	:::::: vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by ClueBot.
	:::::: vandalism by IP. rv by someone else.
	:::::: vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot.
	:::::: vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by someone else.
	:::::: IP removed a blank line (non-rendering edit). Not reverted that I could find.
	:::::: Wtshymanski edit. Unrelated to previous IP edits.
	:::::: vandalism by IP (blanking). Fixed by ClueBot.
	:::::: IP added an ungrammatic sentence: "It has very high starting resistance so that it would use in that kind of equipments which needs a very high starting torque." Wtshymanski reverted with comment "out of place unclear and ungrammatical" (this is the rv DSP complained about).
	:::::: minor grammatical correction by IP. Wording improved by me.
	::::: Counts:
	::::: 19 edits by IPs total (I am counting successive edits by the same IP, with none intervening, as just one).
	::::: 11 of these were vandalism. Of those, ONE was reverted by Wtshymanski.
	::::: 6 were good edits. Of those, W. reverted NONE. Two of them were significant changes to content.
	::::: 1 was a good faith but erroneous edit, reverted by Andy Dingley.
	::::: 1 was what I would call "legitimately problematic". Wtshymanski reverted it. Yes, it could have been improved.
	::::: It seems clear to me that W., far from reverting "any and all" edits by IPs as you accused, was far more selective. He in fact reverted only one of 11 IPs' vandalism edits, one problematic edit, and none of six good edits. I would say that the evidence from this article, one of those you complained about, refutes your accusation rather soundly. The evidence does not even support a claim of "W. erroneously reverts ''most'' IP edits", with or without an accusation of vandalism. (I would also say that it shows there is ample reason to view IP edits with a particularly skeptical eye.)
	::::: But you are the one making the claim, so you are the one who should be providing '''complete''' summaries of recent diffs. Not just a few cherry-picked examples. ] (]) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::The above is non-evidence. 12 edits were reverted by others. That proves nothing except that someone beat Wtshymanski to the punch in each case. Even Wtshymanski presumably sleeps and works from time to time. As already stated, Wtshymanski usually does not revert an edit, if it leaves the article wrong (6 edits). And the last 'legitimately problematic' one, is similar to case 1 of this complaint. 'It could have been improved'. Yes, and Wtshymanski is as capable of improving it as anyone else, but if the edit had been left, someone would have improved it.
	::::::I have not 'cherry-picked' evidence as you claim. I have listed ''every'' IP address revert since 17th Feb. If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled. But this was stated in the original complaint. ] (]) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::: So, I provided the diffs you asked for, and you moved the goalposts. But then you want to stick by the original complaint? The original complaint was:
	:::::::: ''"{{user6|Wtshymanski}} is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. "''
	::::::: That has been disproven (with great ease, just as most generalizations can be). You listed "every IP address revert since 17 Feb"? And you found a grand total of five? W. has made 'prox 700 edits since 17 Feb. So less than 1% of W's edits in the last three weeks were reverts of IP edits that you think were unjustly described as vandalism? You're going to have to find much more compelling evidence than that.
	::::::: ''"If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled."'' So you can find a few examples out of several hundred edits, not mention that they're picked out of seven hundred edits, and you think that makes your case? This has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. Makes me wonder if the evidence in W.'s other ANI, etc., cases, at least the ones brought by DSP, AD, and GM was as tenuous? ] (]) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::: Yes, the "problematic edit" by the IP (severe grammar problem) ''was'' the one you listed. Yes, it could have been improved. The fact remains that W.'s revert of the IP's edit left the article better than it had been after the IP. So we have a justified edit by W., and your complaint is that he should have done more. Got it. ] (]) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Andy, above you asked (?) what the point is. I think you or someone should ask for something specific. I looked at W's and this seems to be an annual affair (that somehow skipped last spring). The first block for this in 2012 was a day; the block for this in 2013 was a week. There is a clear pattern of the same behavior continuing, which is a violation of AGF and is DISRUPTIVE. So you should propose a longer time-limited block (say 2 months?) or perhaps an indef. It would probably take community consensus for either, and this is indeed the place to propose that and get consensus for it. But in the block proposal you should make a good, concise, ANI-ready statement of the case, if you want it to succeed. That is my advice anyway. ] (]) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::: I have better things to do than to read and memorise Wtshymanski's block log. If he has been formally warned not to behave just like he's doing here, and he's been blocked for doing it previously, then I'd agree that it might be useful for an admin to follow that precedent and act accordingly. ] (]) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::You questioned whether this was an incident. With the demise of the RfC/U system, the only avenue now available to address user's behavioural issues is here at ANI (and the defunct RfC/U procedure says so). If nothing happens as a result of this, then I can only assume that the admins are granting open season on reverting other editors' posts. That may not be there intent, but it will certainly be the message. ] (]) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I would only ask that the admins look at the pattern of behavior here:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	Please note that some incidents that would no doubt have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so the block log does not tell the whole story.
	Also note that when Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with ''"Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required"''. Please don't fall for it again. --] (]) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Guy's post above underlines a very major problem. The administrators are (unwittingly) exacerbating the problem. A running feature in the long history of these behavioral disputes and complaints is that whenever the administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his attitude and behavior towards other Misplaced Pages users. I have lost count of the number of times, that some editor has criticised Wtshymanski on his talk page only for Wtshymanski to respond that his attitude has already been taken to ANI (or wherever) with no action and therefore it is acceptable . This was covered as long ago as the 2012 RfC/U. ] (]) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Ah. Found it!
	{{Quote|quote= "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." - ''Wtshymanski''}}
	* again, {{u|DieSwartzPunkt}} and {{u|Andy Dingley}} you have presented a bunch of evidence, which is great. But just coming here and making a complaint about a pattern of behavior generally leads no where here; the discussion will just go on and on and will eventually peter out as everyone gets exhausted. If you want something done '''you should make a concrete proposal for action''' ] (]) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: It's ] who posted this, not me. I have no expectations of ANI ever acting usefully, so wouldn't have wasted the ink. ] (]) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::well there is self-fulfilling prophecy if i ever saw one. OK I will do it, just so I don't have to watch this follow the sad pattern. ] (]) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::As for what action is required? Wtshymanski's battleground attitude to other editors (both registered and anonymous) has been going on for several years. Guy Macon's very comprehensive listing above is testament to that. What is required is some action to force Wtshymanski to co-operate with other editors in the manner that Misplaced Pages intend. This means either a series of escallating blocks until he falls into line (though this has not worked so far). Alternatively, I would suggest the proposal that was made at the 2012 RfC/U, where a set of rigourously enforced sanctions be applied against Wtshymanski. There was a good list discussed ] which would be a good starting point. ] (]) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivetop|withdrawn as proposer ] (]) 01:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC) }}
	===Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski ===
	{{userlinks|Wtshymanski}}
	* '''Support''' - as proposer. W has a well documented, long term pattern of ] editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits. Demonstrated by block log and diffs above. ] (]) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' - as complainant. Previous block for this behaviour was one week and achieved nothing. A longer block is needed to try and get the message across. ] (]) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	* Heres a better idea: block or interaction ban Dingley from bringing Wtshymanski to ANI again. Hes the one who has the problem. There are just three editors here who keep complaining about Wtshymanski: DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley. Theyre the ones who are causing this. Wtshymanski reverts bad edits - whats even wrong with that? To find things to complain about they dragged up a RFCU case from three years ago. No one else has trouble with Wtshymanski so leave the guy alone. ] (]) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*Re: "DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley": ...and Binksternet, and Bratland, and Deucharman, and Dicklyon, and EdJohnston, and Floydian, and Hasteur, and Jytdog, and N5iln, and NellieBly, and North8000, and Northamerica1000, and P-Tronics, and Rdengler, and RichardOSmith, and too many IP editors to count... --] (]) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	* <s>'''Support'''. As Wtshymanski himself said, ''"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."'' --] (]) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)</s> The new proposal 2 is better. --] (]) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' The complaint states that ''"W has a well documented, long term pattern of ] editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits."'' But the "evidence" posted by DSP shows only five such incidents "in the last three weeks". That's five edits out of over 700 made by Wtshymanski in that time. That's quite a standard W. is being held to. Regarding the list of previous incidents so painstakingly compiled by GuyMacon, many of those were closed without action. Since the current proposal is unsupported by sufficient evidence, this turns into "let's punish him '''more''' for the past 'pattern of behavior', even though we've provided no evidence that it's continuing." That's not how AN/I works. ] (]) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Interesting that you are prepared to cite 700 more or less mechanical edits adding a "no" to the "living=" parameter on biographical talk pages (that do not actually seem to change anything), as justification that Wtshymanski can revert IP address editors, contributions. Unless, the is, that you yourself do not approve of IP address editors editing. Guy answered the conclusions in his missive. ] (]) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I won't comment on past history, but those 5 diffs at the beginning of this section are problematic as evidence. For example, the Feb 25 edit does not refer to the IP edit just before it, but to an earlier IP edit. The Mar 2 edit was clearly subtle vandalism from an IP whose only edits have been vandalism. --] (]) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::This point was addressed. The IP resolves to a ''whole'' college in India. These have been problematic for a long time. ] (]) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Per difs provided by Jeh which refute the accusation. ] (]) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::And have been shown to be non- evidence. ] (]) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' I see the case as clearly proven. I see Jeh's posting of diffs ''of other peoples' edits'' as not proving anything about Wtshymanski's behaviour at all (How was that even supposed to work?).
	: However I don't want to see Wtshymanski long-term blocked (or ], where something similar and equally counter-productive happened). We have several clear policies, one of which is AGF, others are about crediting merges, discussion with others etc. and Wtshymanski has a long, long history of ignoring any of them he feels like. However what I want to see happen instead is for him to just start bloody well behaving himself, same as the rest of us have to. I don't want this to be at the cost of excluding him altogether (if at all possible). Maybe over-optimistic, but I hope something is possible.
	: As an imposed action today, I'd be much more keen on some narrowly worded restriction. "Not describing non-vandalism as vandalism" would be a start. Simply not reverting IPs ''at all'', if that's the smallest that can stick. I can't support a three month block on an editor though, even Wtshymanski. ] (]) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. Per Andy above. Just because Wtshymanski does not assume good faith doesn't mean that we should not give him a chance to correct himself. A temporary ban from reverting any IP edits may even be better than this. ] (]) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Oddly, I proposed this as an alternative to the 3 month block, but got shouted down. (See edit history for more). ] (]) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Not reasonable. I to withdraw a competing recommendation; and suggested I delete the whole 2nd proposal; which . You just lost all credibility with me. ] (]) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	::::{{replyto|Jytdog}} Since I neither reproposed the option 2 nor added a vote of support for it, what exactly is your problem? ] (]) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	===Proposal 2: revert restriction ===
	{{userlinks|Wtshymanski}} is indefinitely prohibited from reverting an edit without a content based edit summary. In addition, they are prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status in the summary.
	*'''Support''' addresses the specific concern without unduly interfering with editing of the encyclopedia. <small>]</small> 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support'''. As I indicated with the examples I gave in ], it can be very difficult to figure out who was reverted and why from Wtshymanski's edit summaries. --] (]) 02:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	** '''Comment''' That's a completely valid concern, and goes with the "content-based edit summary" requirement, but I don't see how it's related to "can't refer to anon status". Will the WP default edit summary for reverting an IP edit be changed for Wtshymanski? Or will he be required to remove it? That would seem to me to make it even harder to figure out who was reverted. ] (]) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	***He is (often but not always) removing the standard "Undid revision X by Y" (which does not refer to a users registration status, although you can infer it if it list an IP) now, and instead using edit summaries such as "rv anon v" that ''do'' refer to a users registration status. Leaving in the default edit summary would not violate this proposed restriction. --] (]) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose'''. First, this proposal is not matched by a specific complaint that the proposal will address. (Which btw is why the following lengthy screed is here under my vote, instead of in the "discussion after complaint" section where it belongs.) DSP's original complaint was that W. reverts "any and all" IP edits; that is obviously false. Subsequent discussion was all over the place, but I don't see any specific complaints that are complementary to this proposal.
	: I suppose we can infer that <strike>the goalposts have now been moved</strike> the complaint has been changed to "W. frequently does not provide content-based edit summaries, and refers to IP edits disparagingly in edit summaries." But no evidence has been presented to support those complaints. A report of an "incident" here is supposed to be supported by diffs that are clear illustrations of the problem behavior. The only clear evidence here is {{user|DieSwartzPunkt}}'s five diffs, but those were originally compiled to support the "W. reverts any and all IP edits" complaint, not this. But those are all we have. So, taking them in order:
	:* 17 Feb: Edit summary of W.'s revert was content-based ("out of place unclear and ungrammatical") and did not mention "lack of registration status" outside of WP's default summary for a revert of an IP edit. (Re the quality of the revert, though that does not seem to be anything being addressed by this proposal: I would note that "high starting resistance" does not sound like a positive attribute for any electric motor under any circumstances. Granted that W. could have reworded instead of reverting, W's revert nevertheless left the article better than the IP's edit did.) Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
	:* 18 Feb: This is the "not visible so it's not light" revert. I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake, but the edit summary was content-based ("IR not visible") and only used the WP default wording for a revert of an IP edit. Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
	:* 25 Feb: This is the "restored deleted PROD" case. In this case W. did write "rv anon". But the WP default summary text was also present, and it also shows that the edit being reverted was by an IP. Score: one for "edit summary not content-based" but I cannot see that this unduly refers to an "anon" editor, not when WP's default message does the same.
	:* 25 Feb: This is the "unijunction transistor" case. W.'s edit summary is "rv anon v". Granted that this is not "content-based", but how much do we have to "content-base" a summary to defend a rv v?
	:: DSP writes ''"The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism'"''.
	:: But the "no evidence to the contrary" part of that assertion is absurd. Changing "unijunction" to "junction" in '''one''' place in an article ''titled'' "Unijunction transistor", and which has the word "unijunction" all over it, is pretty tough to assume to be an honest mistake. It is, rather, sadly typical of IP drive-by petty vandalism. If the IP thought the correct word was "junction" then ie should have made the change everywhere. Hence "rv v" is justified, and no further "content-based summary" is required. Score: No support for either supposed complaint. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I don't think you can say that I have no case at all. At worst, it's arguable.
	:: n.b.: I have adopted the pronoun "ie" as a parallel to "he" or "she", to be used to refer to IPs of unknown gender.
	:* 02 Mar: This is the "two phase electric power" edit. Edit summary: rv v with WP standard rv of IP text. The IP changed "90" to "180". On first glance this too could be seen to be an honest mistake, since the very common split phase power used in the US has a 180 degree phase difference. But this edit was in the "this article about" section of a SeeAlso, ''contrasting'' the 90-degree "two phase electric power" with split phase power. Moreover, there's a nice diagram in the lede, which clearly shows a 90 degree phase shift; and 90 degrees is also mentioned in the lede text. The IP didn't change any of that. Further, the IP's edit history shows a clear pattern of petty changes, nearly all of which were reverted. DSP says that the IP locates to a college in India, so there might be several different people using it and no conclusion can be drawn. I would agree if there was a pattern of mostly good edits. But not here. If the IP is being used by a group of people, then it's a group of people who collectively are vandals. I would also argue that expecting an editor to do a geolocate on an IP is an unreasonable length to expect anyone to go to. It looks more to me like a desperate quest for a reason to AGF, despite evidence to the contrary. No, "rv v" is appropriate and sufficient. Score: No support for supposed complaint.
	: So in my opinion, only one of those diffs clearly supports the complaint that I'm assuming this proposal addresses, with one or at most two more arguable.
	: But even if all of them supported the complaint, do not, by themselves, demonstrate a general pattern of problem edit summaries by W. They show five edits, for which DSP apparently had to scour W.'s edit history for ''the last three weeks'', a period during which W. made over 700 edits. Proposers need to provide evidence showing that these are more than isolated cases.
	: Furthermore, I really wonder how many other editors' history would stand up to this level of nitpicking? I also wonder how many of W's past AN/I and other cases were made on equally flimsy grounds?
	: Lastly, regarding ''"prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status"'' part: When you revert an IP edit, WP automatically supplies a default summary of "Undid revision (number) by (IP address)". Are we going to require that W. change that? If not, how does the word "anon" call any undue or disparaging attention to the anonymous nature of the edit being reverted? If you do, do you really want to ''require'' W.'s reverts to not reflect the IP of the edit being reverted? That would only make it more difficult to figure out who was reverted and why, a result {{user|Guy Macon}} could be expected to object to, based on his statements above. ] (]) 12:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal above is too broad given the context. I am about to support the proposal, but with a scope restriction. ] (]) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: @Jeh - so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was ''correct''?
	:: Both of these edits (unijunction transistor and two phase power) were (to agree with Wtshymanski) ignorant and careless. They were obviously contradicted by the articles themselves, so any "careful" editor, not even a subject expert, should have had cause to question them. However a vast number of our IP editors on electrical topics are Indian college students with the confident ignorance of undergrads worldwide and an oddly (but obvious) Indian fixation on somewhat obsolescent electrical topics (I don't know what their biomedical students are learning, but their electrical engineers are taught about what the West tends to regard as museum pieces). I would lay money that these edits came from either an Indian technical college, or a bulk ISP such as BSNL. Look at ] and the perennial factor-of-two numerical errors introduced over "poles" and "pole pairs". We are waist-deep in this garbage and as someone who reverts far more poor edits to electrical topics than even Wtshymanski, I'm sick of it.
	:: However ignorance and piss-poor teaching still isn't vandalism. Per AGF, none of us are allowed to treat it as such. As WP editors we are ''required'' to display infinite patience with clueless edits against basic common sense. Wtshymanski is no longer doing this. To be honest, I can't blame him for it. We should forgive it. However we shouldn't (as you're doing here) construct convoluted excuses for why it's "correct" to do so. ] (]) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: ''"so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was ''correct''?"'' Yes. I said so. I don't think I was at all unclear. Personally I am often a little more hesitant to use the "v" in an edit summary for an IP's first edit and first mistake (e.g. the "unijunction" edit). But with the pattern seen in the history of the IP of the "two phase electric power" edit? That seems very clear to me.
	::: Your thesis is that I'm supposed to AGF even when an edit is of a pattern very commonly used by petty vandals, even when it's from an IP with multiple previous similar edits. I think that, and your requirement of "infinite patience", is absurd. That is an absolute, a universal, and I see no support for such in ]. Please note that ] begins with a disclaimer: ''"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."'' A requirement of "infinite patience" is not at all "common sense", particularly not when the encyclopedia is being damaged repeatedly from the same IP.
	::: I don't think I used "convoluted excuses" either. I think that was done by the apologist who noted that the IP locates to a school and therefore the IP's history of other erroneous edits is irrelevant. How is that idea consistent with WP's use of schoolblocks? Hey, in our effort to bend over backwards while touching our toes to AGF, why don't we just always assume that even if an IP goes to a private home, different family members might be using it, therefore an IP's history is always irrelevant? r-i-g-h-t.
	::: Assuming I agree with your position here (I don't, particularly the "infinite patience" part): How do you reconcile "I can't blame him for it - we should forgive it" with your support for DSP's "reworded" proposal below?
	::: Even if we accept that both of those edits were not v., there still is no evidence for a ''pattern'' of problematic edits. DSP says he went back three weeks in W's history and found ''two'' AGF failures. Oh my ghod, the sky will fall. Again, I ask: How many other editors' histories would stand up against this level of nitpicking? I think DSP is just a little too eager to bring ANI cases against W. ] (]) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::: ''"with the pattern seen in the history of the IP"''
	:::: ''What'' "pattern"? They've made a dozen edits in total. This year they've made the two phase edit and a self-reverted. Neither of these are vandalism and there is no pattern of vandalism from them. Even Checkuser regards IP data as stale after three months, but you're seeing a pattern of confirmed vandalism from it.
	:::: Do you believe in some form of demonic possession? Do you think this router has become inherently evil, and so any editor connecting via it is now forced to turn into some sort of vandal?!
	:::: Your failure to accept AGF as applying to IPs is as bad as Wtshymanski's. ] (]) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: Yeah? Feel free to bring an ANI case if you think you can make it stick. ] (]) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: More constructively: If incorrect use of the "vandalism" charge by W. is what you're really concerned about, why not make a Proposal 3: "Wtshymanski is forbidden from using 'v.', 'vand.', 'vandalism', or other similar accusations of vandalism in edit summaries"? Now, as I said, even if I accept those two IP edits as not-vandalism, there is still a failure to make a case that these are anything but isolated incidents. And I think that, although a few incidents of of AGFFailure could be worthy of a warning from an admin, any long-term restriction on editing behavior needs far more proof. But at least this is a nice clean proposal with clear boundaries for what is and isn't being proposed. If you do this, be sure to make the new proposal separate from the others, unlike what DSP did. ] (]) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support with reword''' : The scope is too broad as it apparently attempting to address issues not raised here as {{u|Jeh}} observes. My support would be for a sanction worded, ''"A prohibition on reverting any edit from an IP address editor. This includes any that are vandalism''". The latter because Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism. Any genuine vandalism will get swept up by others in the usual way. To be enforced by escallating blocks if breached. ] (]) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' : One, I call a procedure violation. This is not a "support with reword"; in particular, this is not a "reword". It is a different proposal completely. You need to make a new proposal for this. (Should the closing admin assume that the previous "support"s apply to your new proposal? Why? They're for a different proposal, one that still allows W. to revert IP edits, among other differences.)
	:: Two, I guess now the "problem" has morphed into "Wtshymanski's reverts of IPs' edits are bad, and Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism". Let's see: Out of the five diffs you posted, only two showed W. accusing of "vandalism". Re the article content, those were completely justified reverts. And in each case there is completely sufficient reason to not AGF.
	:: That leaves two actual problem reverts by W.: One was a revert against policy (restore PROD after IP deleted it). In talk page discussion W. made clear that he was surprised that IPs were allowed to block PRODs. The first time I ran into that, I was surprised too. The other was the "IR not visible so it isn't 'light'" revert, which is a factual error on W's part, not related to reverting of an IP nor to any accusations of vandalism.
	:: But even if we accept those, that is still only two problem edits in three weeks. You haven't shown that such problems only occur when W. reverts IPs, you haven't shown any unjustifiable charges of vandalism, and you haven't shown that any problems that ''are'' demonstrated by these edits are anything but isolated incidents.
	:: And your attempt to cast it as a "reword", attempting to roll "support"s for the original proposal 2 into "support"s for this, is particularly egregious. ] (]) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? ] (]) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	** '''Question''' What are you supporting? The original Proposal 2, or DSP's so-called "reword"? ] (]) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	** In concept. Decent edit summaries are a "best practice," not something that's generally enforced; this would make them enforceable. That's why it's not an unreasonable measure. <small>]</small> 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*''' Support''' the reworded (and it is re-worded) restriction. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 11:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support but take to ArbCom''' - ] is seem to not understand ], which concerns a lot of new users who decide to make some edits logged out before making an account. However, I don't think ANI is the place for this, consider taking this to ]. --] (]) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' the reworded restriction. This kind of wholesale reversion is the worst kind of ]y behavior. {{ping|NE Ent|Guy Macon}} could you two please weigh in and indicate if you support the reworded restriction as well, or exclusively what was originally proposed? ]! 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	**'''Question''' ''What'' "wholesale reversion"? Five reported reverts in three weeks? Only two of them factually invalid? ] (]) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' the original (not reworded) proposal. I wanted to stay completely uninvolved, but the user convinced me at their talk page that the topic ban is needed.--] (]) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	** '''Comment''' I nee no proposal for a "topic ban". What "topics" is W. to be banned from editing? ] (]) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	**: You are right, I did not word it in a good way. I support the proposal to restrict W from reverting edits without a content-based summary. This is indeed not a topic ban.--] (]) 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. I fully agree with Jeh's analysis of the diffs submitted as evidence, I was about to write something very similar myself. WTS ''is'' a problematic editor and ''has'' demonstrated a prejudice against IPs in the past, but there is no justification on the evidence given here for any kind of adminstrative action against WTS. The last two diffs in particular, I would likely have reverted them myself without comment. They are obviously wrong and very possibly deliberately disruptive (and by the way, the last one is precisely WTS's area of expertise and is thus certainly not blind reversion). I wouldn't be opposed to a ban on WTS making ''any'' edit with any kind of sarcasm in the edit summary (where it cannot easily be replied to), but that would be a different thread altogether to the one here. ]] 15:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	===In the absence of action it continues...===
	'''8th Mar'''
	IP edit:
	Wtshymanski revert:
	:This was a challenge of provided information by asking for a supporting reference. The IP editor did not use the correct <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual. He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template, but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors. ] (]) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Let's see. A proposal with only one oppose !vote, and that one from someone who appears to be OK with siding with Wtshymanski in a content dispute where there are ''zero'' citations supporting Wtshymanski and where the chairman of that IEEE 1159.1 Power Quality Measurements wrote a paper specifically to correct Wtshymanski‎'s claim. This should be interesting. I will make some popcorn. --] (]) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::What? I didn't side with anybody in that content dispute. I watched it, but I didn't express an opinion either way. Recently, I just asked a question, a considerable amount of time after the dispute at the article page (unless it's still going on; I haven't looked for a while). But either way, the question was just for my information, not meant to "side" with anyone—if I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it at the article talk page. And anyway, what does that have to do with anything here? Does the fact that I was unclear on how PF is calculated and what negative values would mean make my arguments here less valid? Come on, Guy, you're better than that. ] (]) 10:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Nonsense. You spent the entire thread attempting to rubbish everyone else's observations on the matter and attempting to justify what Wtshymanski was doing. You even tried to claim that Wtshymanski's actions in some cases were due to his ignorance of the subject in question. Like when you tried to claim that Wtshymanski might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light. Wtshymanski is sufficiently familiar with the technology to know that 'LED' stands for "''Light'' Emitting Diode" and that 'infra-red light is as much light as any other variety. ] (]) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: You know, DSP, posting carelessly is completely within your rights. But when you do so, you should keep in mind that everything I posted is right here for everyone to see. When it is so ridiculously easy to show that you're off base, I really have to wonder what your motivation is.
	::::: There is no support here for a blanket charge of my attempting to "justify what W. was doing". (You have a real problem with speaking in generalities; do you realize that? Do you understand what the problem is with making such claims?) I pointed out that in a couple of the whopping total of five diffs you'd provided, W's. reverts were justified. I pointed out that the five diffs you posted did not support your accusations, that the behavior they did show would not be countered by the various proposals, and that the proposals did not match up with the accusations. Nor did I try "to claim that W. might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light." I wrote . I later wrote, referring to the same edit, . Get your facts right.
	::::: I even suggested a proposal that actually would fit the complaint - W. would be forbidden from referring to "vandalism" in edit summaries. Did you miss that?
	::::: You may be thinking of my comment re. the revert of the IP's deletion of a PROD. I was thinking of this comment by W.: Now, maybe I am naive for interpreting that as honest unawareness of the rules—I don't think so, since W. rarely lifts a finger to answer critics; I can't imagine him lying to do so, that would be too much trouble—but it wasn't something I just dreamed up. ] (]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Jeh, with all due respect, I believe that the record shows that I have been bending over backwards to give Wtshymanski the benefit of the doubt, convince him to engage in a serious discussion about his behavior, and to recommend the minimum level of sanctions that I think will reduce the ongoing disruption to the engineering articles. My perception of your approach is that your are a staunch defender of Wtshymanski, that whenever anyone posts a criticism that is flawed in any way you dissect it analyze it in great detail (which is good), but when a criticism hits home (my response Wtshymanski's continued snarky comments about how right he is about negative power factor despite the reams of citations showing him that he is wrong, for example), you go silent and move on to your next talking point. In my opinion, you are an advocate, not someone who tries to support Wtshymanski when he is right (as he often is) and criticize him when he is wrong. Nothing wrong with that, of course. --] (]) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: Guy, I am glad you posted that. I was working on a lengthy reply to the thread over at W.'s talk page when he blanked it (as he is wont to do). Now I have another place, a better place, to put it. But I have real work to do today, so I'll get back to this later. For a short answer, though: I see many things wrong with W.'s behavior; it is just that there are so many people eager to bring AN/I cases against him that it seems superfluous for me to mention them. Meanwhile, it is puzzling to me that you read me as an "advocate" when I don't think I've done much if anything beyond calling for hewing to the standard ''you'' . ] (]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: You make good point, and looking back at my comment I see that I was too harsh and aggressive. We are clearly both here to improve the encyclopedia, and I apologize for my tone. Sorry about that. --] (]) 12:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			=== Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work ===
	::::::: Thank you. ] (]) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. ] (]/]) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've got some experience of ] investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. ] (]) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I 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}}		{{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) ===
	{{ping|Guy Macon}}: Ok, here's the long version. First: I pretty much agree with what you wrote . Same with Dennis Bratland's "outside view" .
			{{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.
	Personally, I do think he has mellowed some in the last year or so. Still, whenever an edit of mine conflicts with one of W's I groan a little, because I'm expecting a fight. The times I haven't gotten one, I've been pleasantly surprised—and that isn't how it's supposed to be here; as was pointed out to me rather firmly in my first months, "AGF! This isn't USENET!" So even I wish he could be persuaded to take the attitude down a few notches, not to mention interact more on his talk page. It would be better for the encyclopedia, and it would be better for him: some positions he takes that I agree with (like ) would have a better chance of being heard if there wasn't such a crusty curmudgeon behind them.
			:'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD.
			:'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except: (1) to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded; (2) to comment in AfD discussions or to oppose PRODs or CSDs regarding those articles; or (3) to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.
			The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	But I don't like dogpiles, and I don't like witch-hunts. More specifically: I don't like zealous efforts to dig through piles of old evidence to find actionable edits, followed by trying one proposal after another to see if something sticks... even though the evidence doesn't support the complaints and the proposals don't address the real problems.
			==== Uninvolved editors ====
	Look at DSP's flip-flopping: from his first paragraphs, which included obviously-wrong universals like ''"W. reverts any and all edits by IPs"''; then switching from one proposal to another when the first collects objections... and branding his own as a "reword" when its intended results had very little in common with what it was supposedly a reword of. ~''"We found five problem edits (out of 700) in the last three weeks! Surely there's enough here to get him blocked, or banned from doing SOMEthing!"'' It really makes DSP look desperate, and since DSP, AD, and GM almost never disagree with each other where W. is concerned, the appearance of desperation is shared around.
			* '''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)
	And look at some of the reactions to my objections. AD dismisses me with an ''ad hom:'' ~''"Well, you're W.'s friend, so of course you rush in to defend him."'' (Dare I suggest AGF, in a complaint thread that's ''about'' AGF?) DSP re the "IR not visible" edit. (I notice that he's "gone silent" on that point.) Similarly, over at W's talk page, an admin claims I said that ''all'' of W's reverts were justified! Just how un-carefully do you have to read to conclude such things? Perhaps something that could be called is involved. I'm partly serious there. I suggest that Wtshymanski's generally... let's call it ''brusque'' attitude leads those who are most offended by him to scrutinize his edits far more closely, and find fault far more often, than they would with most other editors.
			==== Involved editors ====
	I see it again in DSP's jumping on W's rv of an IP's edit to the ] article. Yes, at first glance it looks like the IP was correct and that W was wrong to revert. Another bogus revert of an IP by Wtshymanski! Throw another log on the pyre! Oh wait. At second glance it looks very much otherwise; see ] for further discussion. Editors there have carefully examined the refs and decided for now at least that W's revert was correct. There is still more evidence to be looked at, but the point here is that it looks to me as if DSP jumped too easily to the conclusion that W.'s revert was wrong, motivated as he was to add more weight to this complaint.
			:{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also '''support''' option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. '''Oppose''' option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. ''']''' (]) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose all''', as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --] (]) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''C''' if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: {{tq| If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree.}} I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) ] (]) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Prefer''' the less stringent '''option A''' because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on ], all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. ] (]) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. ''']''' (]) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:"Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with ] and ]. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. ] (]) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring ], I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - ] (]) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] at this point. I can see you do not like me. I can see this from both your wording of "sub-standard crap" and "go for a ban". Some choice wording and actions. I've already answered enough but your clearly made up your mind. Nothing else will convince you. Perhaps you should not engage further with me at this point. Cause nothing I say or do seems to provide enough evidence to quell your subtle dislike of me. Prehaps you should just let the other editors handle it. Im not gonna apologise further and try to change your opinion of me. I wont reply further to you at this point. Your wording is coming across as aggressive and threating to me. ] (]) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Absolute nonsense. I neither like nor dislike you. I have major concerns over your ability to edit and I stand by my judgement of your output. I have further concerns over your decision to create category pages and work on categories while the thread was going on rather than start clearing up the mess you’ve made. All you’ve done is provide more evidence that you lack the ability to edit within the guidelines. Again, this is nothing to do with liking or not liking you as an individual (I’m entirely ambivalent about you) but it is about your output and the additional time and effort you are making others go through to tidy up the mess you’ve made. ] (]) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. ] (]) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{cob}}
			==== Discussion ====
			* I think I would be happier if:
			# there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400).
			# I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "{{tq|This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}.}}" This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB '''prove''' to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - ] (]) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? ''']''' (]) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See ]. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). ]] 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* {{ping|KJP1|Cremastra}} Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">{{snd}}Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			* I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, '''before''' posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be.
			:Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.
			:I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community ''consensus'' to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.
			:I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --] (]) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			* The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – ] and ] also apply here. --] (]) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{re|Tryptofish}} I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the ]. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance).{{snd}}] (]&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)
			:::::::::::::Agree with a "structure" for reviewing Dragon's articles and Dragon's involvement. Their 'own' articles are where it seems the vast majority of problematic editing lies. Oppose mainspace editing restriction because I'm not satisfied a strong enough case has been made. To be clear, I'm not "acting more out of a feeling". Of course, should Dragon agree to a mainspace editing restriction that would change things. ] (]) 08:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::{{ec}} I've already had my say indicating 'absolutely nothing but article fixing' (there is ''plenty'' of evidence around their inability to source properly - pick any off the list they've started and have a look), and would still strongly prefer that was the starting point until, say, DoB have worked on fifteen articles they started to raise them to an acceptable level (per KJP's comment just above). That should give a very rough initial indication whether there is sufficient willpower, competence and desire to continue editing at the required level. The restriction could be loosened after that to allow some other steps (eg, allowed to create two or three articles at AfD if they wish - on the understanding KJP or Cremastra (or other acceptable parties) review those articles prior to them being moved to mainspace). - ] (]) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I'd favour a restriction which means they will focus entirely on upgrading existing poor articles, and so stop editing not only mainspace but categories, templates, portals, etc. If we only say "no mainspace editing" I can imagine a flurry of creation of unnecessary categories, navboxes, or something else no-one thought to exclude. Perhaps allow talk page access (both article and user) so that if they see something which really needs correcting they can make a post suggesting it or alert a relevant editor. ]] 08:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles ==
	In short, I raised objections to this complaint/series of complaints/series of proposals against W. not because I think W. is beyond reproach, nor because I'm his "friend", but because I don't think the complaints or proposals are justified by the evidence, and I don't think the proposals address the real issues (those being a pattern of general, but generally mild, incivility, and near-complete refusal to engage in discussion). And I don't think anybody should be the target of the sorts of tag-teaming, lets-get-him-on-something campaign I see here.
			] 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.
	Yes, of course "Everybody knows" W. is hasty to revert IPs. That's what the complaint was here, and he's been taken to ANI a lot before (though not for a pattern of being hasty to revert IPs), so of course it must be true. But a few point examples don't prove it. Nevertheless an admin showed up and seemed only too eager to take up the banner. That admin even that it was legitimate to conclude that any given revert of W's was likely erroneous just because W. has been taken to ANI, etc., more often than most. ("This guy's had three tickets this year; let's write him for speeding again even though we haven't so much as clocked him!") This is the same revert I mentioned DSP jumping on above, and the sources show that W.'s revert was correct. The admin mentioned "statistics," but cited no numbers, only personal impressions. As Guy Macon said ], a lot of things that "everybody knows" turn out to be not true. Bottom line: If we're supposed to take it as proven that Wtshymanski is overly revertful of IP edits, then let's see some numbers that prove that charge. I don't agree that general impressions shared by the hive mind are sufficient, particularly for someone who edits as much as Wtshymanski does. And especially when someone is calling for a three-week block.
			Diffs:
	The current complaint started out with "not even wrong" universal claims ("W. reverts any and all edits by IPs") and did not improve after that. What we're left with is "W. has misbehaved a lot in the past, and here are a tiny handful of problem edits; let's make up some proposals that address some very specific issues with these edits." That's not the way to bring an AN/I case, and the proposals made here are not going to do anything for the real problems.
			* 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)
	That is all. I've spent way too much time on this. Last words are everyone else's. I'm banning myself from the next three W.-related ANI threads, at least. ] (]) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)		: The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. ] (]) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 ] (]) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*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 ==
	:I am in agreement with Jeh. In particular, the "W. reverts any and all edits by IPs" claim was stupid, and we all -- myself included -- need to work harder on only supporting claims where there is solid evidence, and objecting whenever claims are overreaching. Jeh, I still feel bad about going off half cocked in my first reply to you. That was wrong, and again I apologize.
			*{{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.
	:This is my final comment here, so in closing I am going to repost something I wrote to Wtshymanski in response to his writing "Suddenly I'm the biggest threat to Misplaced Pages since Essjay", and which he deleted without response.
			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.
	::"No, you are not the biggest threat to Misplaced Pages since Essjay. What you are is someone who refuses to simply engage in a dialog about your behavior, forcing multiple frustrated editors to take to to ANI in the hope that an admin will intervene. Your every interaction drips with sarcasm and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with you, and you never admit defeat, even in cases such as negative power factor where you have never, ever been able to produce a single cite supporting your position after it became clear (the author himself told you so) that the IEEE standard had an error in it. You piss people off, and not just a few of them. Some withdraw in frustration, some misbehave in retaliation, and a few keep trying to reduce the disruption to the encyclopedia. Your actual level of disruption is actually rather mild compared to most cases, but it drives people crazy when they cannot get you to simply talk over your differences like adults. But of course you know all of this." --Posted by ] (]) to Wtshymanski's talk page on 20:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: {{Diff2|1269540618|1}}, {{diff2|1268720318|2}}, {{diff2|1268521356|3}}, {{Diff2|1268313652|4}}, {{Diff2|1268308516|5}}, {{Diff2|1268121077|6}}, {{Diff2|1268119998|7}}, {{Diff2|1268118180|8}}, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is ]. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor ({{u|Augmented Seventh}}): {{diff2|1269323555|1}}, {{diff2|1269333853|2}}, {{diff2|1269126403|3}}. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15.
	:I can only hope that Wtshymanski decides to be more cooperative and collegial with other editors, realizing that at least some of us have the same goals of improving the Encyclopedia that he has. --] (]) 14:30, 16 March 2015 (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.
	:: I'm going to break my self-imposed exile here because I'm not replying to an argument (I honestly think I've said all I will ever have to say in this thread). Rather I'm just saying "thank you". Guy, you had apologized previously and I was completely satisfied with that. My missive above was not intended to elicit more of the same, simply to explain further why I've been following the path I've been following. In any case, thank you again for stopping to "listen" to my POV. ] (]) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (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)
	===Still no action and the problem continues===
			: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)
	'''13th Mar'''
			::That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and ], you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. ]] 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. , for example, they say: {{tpq|Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. }}. You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. ] (]) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. ({{Diff2|1269544073|1}}, {{Diff2|1269540089|2}}, {{Diff2|1269335610|3}}, {{Diff2|1269126904|4}} {{Diff2|1269098577|5}}, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). ]] 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Seeing {{tq|no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism}} is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ ] (]) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. ] (]) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the ] (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." ] (]) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments {{Diff2|1269580448|demanding}} that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. ]] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.
			:::::
			::::@]: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are ''obvious'' vandalism.
			:::::
			::::Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway, {{tqq|You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents}} - right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you ''will'' stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you ''might'' stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. ]] 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{nacc}} {{ping|PEPSI697}} A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page ], ] and ]. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at ] and ] because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.{{pb}}FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on ] that you get {{tq|stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it}} when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been ]. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if you {{tq|sometimes don't understand what some words mean}}, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.{{pb}}Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- ] (]) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to ]. ]] 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. ] (]) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future ===
	1st IP edit: : 2nd IP edit:
			:I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
	Wtshymanski revert:
			::
			: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 ===
	:This was a case of two for the price of one. {{u|Wtshymanski}} got to revert ''two'' good faith edits from ''two'' different IP editors at the same time. The first IP added a co-creator of ] to the article. A definitely ] addition because it was entirely correct. The second IP linked the added name to the Misplaced Pages article (so also ]). Wtshymanski, in less than an hour, reverted both edits. He was more interested in reverting the IP edits than whether what they had added was correct. Had Wtshymanski, followed the added link to the Misplaced Pages article, he whould have discovered than not only that ] indeed had co-created BASIC but that it was reliably and verifiably referenced. ] (]) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (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)
	:: I put a fairly strong warning and I feel that the next revert should result in a block. <s>Since I am not involved (in fact, did not hear about this user until today), I will have no hesitation to block them myself, but of course any uninvolved administrator can do it.</s>--] (]) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: Now someone objected me at the talk page, got me involved in the discussion, and I can not be considered as uninvolved any more.--] (]) 19:21, 13 March 2015 (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.
	:::Related: (PDF). --] (]) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (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)
			::Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There is guidance on how to use the {{tlx|Talk header}} found on its documentation page at ] and also at ]. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in ] and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like ], ], ], ], ] for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at ] or ]. -- ] (]) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with ], but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get ] article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od|5}} Perhaps an administrator could close this discussion and all its related sub-discussions now that the OP and PEPSI697 seem to have amicably resolved their issue. Maybe all that's needed here is a firm warning to PEPSI697 to try to be careful in the future, and perhaps some encouragement to try not to over use these tools if doing so risks placing them in high-stress situations where they might lose their cool, with a reminder that the community might be less understanding the next time around if they end up back at ANI for doing something similar. -- ] (]) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Good idea there. I agree that me, Jolielover and the others involved resolved this issue. I absolutely agree with this idea to give a firm warning on my talk page. <b>]</b> ] | ] 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Thank you! Some action at last. I have taken the liberty of copying the reference from the ] article to the ] article so it is unreferenced no longer. It should not have been necessary for someone else to do this, as Wtshymanski could easily have been helpful to the newbie IP editors and done the same. ] (]) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (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 ==
	:::I have just found yet another reversion of a ] edit that was perfectly valid. But since the edit was made before the warning was posted to Wtshymanski's talk page, I shall demonstrate some good faith and let it go. ] (]) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (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)
	::::We have admin eyes on the issue, so I think it is time for me to stop commenting and let this either be closed or time out and be archived. I still think that some admin should look at the totality of Wtshymanski's behavior (ANI ''was'' touted as the replacement for RFC/U, after all) instead of playing ] as a slow but steady stream of ANI complaints are filed. --] (]) 11:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
	:::"Working on" some project under the direction of the two acknowledged inventors did not make Sister Keller the "co-inventor." Kemeny and Kurtz are stated to be the inventors /developers of Basic in countless reliable sources, which say they supervised a team of students who did the implementation. Apparently Keller was one of those students, probably a graduate student. The refs provided only show her to have been one of the worker-bees. It is O.R to list her as a third, co-equal developer of Basic. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article on the Basic language as to Keller's role. ] (]) 03:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
	::::This does not belong here. This is a discussion of the editing habits of one editor. Regardless of whether ] co-invented BASIC or not, this is a discussion on whether Wtshymanski was correct or not to revert the edits adding her to the inventors of the article. He may (or may not) be factually correct, but the IP address that added the information can definitely be assumed to have acted in good faith because the ] article contains the very claim supported by a reference where it has stood unchallenged since the article was created back in June 2012. I am not in a position to say if Wtshymanski has any knowledge of the inventors of BASIC, but he certainly provided no evidence to support his reversion of the edits. His edit comment acompanying the revert of, "no, not really", is, at best, nothing more than a statement of personal knowledge or possibly ].
			:* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
			:* - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
			:* Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
			:An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably ]. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. ] (]) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::done ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] reasons for them.
			::#By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as ''"has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world"'' and ''"The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality"'' + ''"The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"?'' Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate ] and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a '''very''' strong statement cited to..., seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
			::#Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally ], and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. '''If''' that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, '''then''' it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
			::#Do you '''really''' think phrases like ''"China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments."'' are consistent with ]? '''Really?''' ''Maybe'' cutting '''all''' of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
			::# That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently . It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.
			::In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably ]" seems downright ]. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns ? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a ] and ] manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that ] is supposed to prevent. --] (]) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like ], you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't ''bad'' by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply ''not good enough'' or ''relevant enough'' for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.
			::::Given ''this'' context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not ''obligated'' to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. ] (]) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @]'s paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @] provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
			:My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. ] (]) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::''Adding'': Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 ] (]) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*An editor with a declared COI should ''never'' be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the {{tq|strongly discouraged}} wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:] So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this {{redacted|]}}?
			*:Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that '''if''' is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering '''is not even seen anywhere on their front page''' - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as . The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. ] (]) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban)}} - that would be wrong. See ]; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we ''want'' editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read ], and especially ] Having a ''perspective'' on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. ] editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then ] needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.
			::::It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah ] editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that ''every'' edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it ''strictly'' barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --] (]) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's ''not'' the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change {{tq|strongly discouraged}} to {{tq|prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism)}}. I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though.
			::::::Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be ''manually'' saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that {{tq|editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests}} - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I ''need'' to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to ''this'' case, rather than a general statement.
			::::::Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{tqq|So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this}} Uh, guys? Does ] mean nothing to you? - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Looking at this as an uninvolved user, who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point. Two IP address based editors made what must be regarded as good faith edits from the points made above. Their edits were reverted based on nothing more than personal knowledge or original research. To my outside view, that means that this example fits with the general thrust of this ANI complaint. If the good faith edit was wrong, then it requires correction, but that requires supporting references and evidence. A reversion without such evidence, given the referencing at the linked article, is wrong - and that is exactly what happened. I grant that several editors are now questioning the reliability of the referencing, but that discussion was not available to the two IP address editors at the time of their good faith edits so that is entirely moot. –]&nbsp;]</font></span> 11:54, 16 March 2015 (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 tried to make exactly the same point at the user's talk page, without much success: My opponents think that per ] these edits MUST be reverted.--] (]) 12:57, 16 March 2015 (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)
	::::: So WTS was wrong to revert unsourced information on the basis that the same claim is made in another Misplaced Pages article? Come on, we repeatedly tell newbies they can't use Misplaced Pages articles as references. And whatever happened to WP:V and the principle that it is the responsibility of the challenged editor to provide a source? I cannot agree that "who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point". The entire complaint here about WTS is that he is alleged to revert IPs without regard to the quality of their edits. An example where he is shown to be right, or at least knowledgable editors in the subject believe him to be right, absolutley does not count as evidence towards that behaviour. Nor should it be taken as a breach of any previous warning. ]] 19:11, 16 March 2015 (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 ===
	== Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO ==
			: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.
	{{archive top|result=The law of diminishing returns clearly applies; the only consensus to be found is that this needs closing. Allow me some general observations, real quick, and let's not get too particular. a. Jytdog has on occasion a bit on the gruff side, and a few editors point this out. (That he'd be biting an editor who's been here since 2008 is not agreed upon.) b. In the absence of an etiquette board and RfC/U, it's probably best to try and focus on small things, not big things; clear evidence for that comes from the very length of this thread.<p>But this was not about Jytdog or ANI, so: c. There is a measure of agreement that David Tornheim's editing is problematic; individual edits (such as , cited by a number of editors) are ''incredibly'' problematic and the removal of them is warranted by all kinds of policies. There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Misplaced Pages as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules. I find that there is enough reason to warn to Tornheim to '''seriously'' regard WP:RS and WP:NPOV in their edits. Pointing out a lack of neutrality can be seen as biting, hounding, or whatever--unless, of course, it was correct in the first place. In addition, this admin finds that almost everyone here uses too many words, and this admin wonders why adults can't handle these problems in a more mature fashion--but then, when I was young people were more polite and the ham tasted better too. In short, {{U|David Tornheim}}, there is some consensus that your edits are problematic, and you should be careful. There is not enough consensus for a block, but please consider that this was ''not'' laughed out of court, but it was taken seriously by a number of longterm and knowledgeable editors. Thank you. ] (]) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			:With that in mind, I would like to say I have '''great''' difficulty assuming ] here - not when the OP editor {{redacted|]}}, which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective '''and''' when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.
	{{userlinks|David Tornheim}}
			: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)
	'''short story'''
			*: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)
	:OK, I have a stalker, userlinks above, who is accusing me of bad faith actions and COI across multiple Talk pages, so the issues are ], and ]/]. He is also ] about the "biased POV of the GMO articles". ] he makes it clear he is a community activist, and it appears to me he is using such tactics here in WP and is violating ] via ].
			*::They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that {{user|EMsmile}} has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is '''also not on'''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::... gonna ask in talk page of ] if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point ] (]) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::], I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{ping|Liz}} the diff of them ''placing'' it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named ], then it constitutes ] (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at ] think it would be easier to avoid.
			*:::::opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
			*:::::alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? ] (]) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on ] of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant ] and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't ] people or contacting their employers. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	At this point I am '''seeking a 24 block for canvassing, and a strong warning''' for this inexperienced editor to stop these behaviors and to focus on content, not contributors. If David persists after a formal warning, I will seek a topic ban. I believe he is well-intentioned but ''does not understand WP.'' He appears to be ] but I am not bringing that case, at this time.
			*:@] 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)
			*::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 agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.
			*:::Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.
			*:::BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,
			*::::the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.
			*::::AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. ] (]) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.
			*:::::Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Does Wikimedian in Residence apply? ===
	'''longer story'''
			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)
	:<u>]</u>
	: David entered the GMO topic by canvassing 4 editors on their Talk pages.
	::*08:51, 13 February 2015
	::*08:54, 13 February 2015
	::*09:02, 13 February 2015
	::*09:08, 13 February 2015
			: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)
	:These messages are identical, are on pages of dissenters from the consensus on the GMO articles, and are decidedly not neutral, citing a "a pattern of corporate manipulation" and other bad behavior by "small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject" and discussing the "bogus" and "blatant falsehood" of the scientific consensus statement. (Note: the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe to eat, as food from conventional organisms. That was subject to that upheld the content with the consensus statement and its sourcing. That statement in the GMO articles really bothers anti-GMO activists. Continual problem with drive by editors, and some editors who are active here.)
			::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)
	:I provided David formal warning of canvassing . I also on the ] Talk page and a recruiting template to the article.
			::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 ===
	::*After the canvassing warning, in ], David used his concerns about my removing a personal attack (see below) to again vent his general concerns with the POV/COI going on at the GMO suite and my behavior. (again, with an editor he thought would be sympathetic) - <u>which is canvassing, in my view.</u>
			<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)
	:David's canvassing led directly to a posting on Jimbo's talk page by one of the canvassers. Thread is , which grew directly out of ], one of those already linked above.
	::* David contributed to the discussion there, discussing "COI problems that are happening with pharmaceuticals, and are now an equally big problem with GMO articles which lack of NPOV." This is just a continuation of the community activist campaigning and canvassing.
			:'''<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.
	::* And then, David on another editor's Talk page tonight '''that I consider to be canvassing''', that started with said "Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." and discussed more below), and is what prompts me to call for a 24 block for canvassing.
			:the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically ] suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group ] (]) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::From ] {{tq|WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages}} - this seems not to be the case here. ] (]) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.
			:::want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi applies] (]) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by ] - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. ] (]) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. {{U|Bluethricecreamman}} has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether {{U|EMsmile}} was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* '''Oppose''' this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see ] apologize for the ] that occurred. ] (]) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. ] (]) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*'''Strong oppose''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in ''simple ignorance'' (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not ]).
			::That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, '''it fails a DUCK test''', and ''looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor''. What I see is a properly disclosed ] editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. ''These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors.'' Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't ] going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :]&thinsp;] 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: <small>((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above)</small> 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, ''otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month'', 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that ''AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI.'' They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including ''very questionable'' off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where ] was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT ''recent'' contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a '''grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI''' (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month ''for over 11 years'')... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either ] or ]. ]&thinsp;] 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Maybe everyone gets ]s at this point and we move on? ] (]) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.
			:::::However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for '''potential civil-POV'' which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like might come off is overly whitewashing, but {{tq|China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations.}} but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does <u>call into need for a closer look</u>, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. ]&thinsp;] 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group
			::mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. ] (]) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Strong support'''. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, ] applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that ] only ''strongly discourages'' paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --] (]) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose and IMO unthinkable''' They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	* <u>] / ]</u>
			*:{{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)
	:*David has now twice added content to article Talk pages, to "introduce" new users, with POV and attacking messages about contributors, not content:
			*::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)
	:::, which i removed per NPA and with a warning on this Talk page
			*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)
	:::and just now, , which was also removed per NPA by another editor.
			*: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).
	:*Most recently, a new editor came to the articles wanting to add UNDUE content with messed up referencing to the ] article, which i reverted. I , and informing the editor in a neutral way, about how the suite of articles is set up and explained how to add a reference. That editor used what I taught him to edit war the content back in (with proper reference formatting), without talking back at all, so . (am not going to do all the editing diffs in this part. they are if anybody wants to see them)
			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.
	Today, David followed my note and warning with two messages on that editor's page. started with "Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." Which is a '''continuation of ]''' and violates NPA... and is also bad advice, because the editor ''was'' edit warring. David then on that editor's page, critiquing my introductory note. This is just hounding, and this, along with the canvassing, is what prompted this posting.
			It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	* In the two or three weeks since all this started, David has engaged in '''only two''' real discussions about content.
	::*one about "substantial equivalence" which is here: ]
	::*the other, trying to add content about a 14 year old primary source discussing cellular engineering (not genetic engineering) to the genetic engineering article. Discussion is ].
	::In both cases, he was wrong about the topic (law/regulation in one and science in the other), and ''after he actually read the sources or had them explained to him'', he acknowledged he was wrong. All this agita appears to be based on a very strongly held position that "GMOs are bad". He does not appear to be ] in the subject matter.
			I looked at ] last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics '''written 73% of the article''', in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
	* The behavior is all, classic ]. I deal with a lot of editors like this in the GMO suite and do not bring them here or create drama.
			<small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small>
	I am bringing this case, because David is different. With him, there is a new stalking element and really wrong focus on ''motivations'' and on contributors (namely me) not content, that is, to me, really icky, and a set of "community organizing" activities that is ''very'' unwikipedian.
			ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Misplaced Pages but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Misplaced Pages as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Misplaced Pages to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Misplaced Pages. The opportunity is to improve Misplaced Pages articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.
			] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hat|deeper background here, for anyone who wants it ] (]) 02:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			:Hello ], we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of ]. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (] (which is an alliance), nor the concept ] itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website.
	*Closing. David believes he has The Truth here and that his behavior is justified, and I reckon he will try to turn this into an examination of my behavior. I know that and expect it. I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). <u>In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP.</u> I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works ''at all'' (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do '''not''' speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV <u>about me</u>. I (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I my Talk page and to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling.
			: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).
	{{hab}}
			: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 ask that, if this turns into an examination of my behavior, that this be done in a separate thread. '''This thread is focused on <u>David's behavior</u> demonstrated above, which is out of line.'''
			<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)
	*Anyway, as I mentioned above, '''I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing and a warning for David to stop these behaviors.''' I would like the warning to include instruction to '''discuss content, not contributors.'''
			::::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)
	Thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (added a bit per note below ] (]) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC))
	:Have you first tried to engage with David in a meaningful discussion? If so, why did initial attempts to solve the issue fail? I'm asking this only because I can't make any clear inferences about that from your long post, so it may be a good idea for you to state that clearly. -] 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::yes, as i did describe above. added some ] (]) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::I see lots of accusations thrown against ] for allegedly stalking you, and that may indeed be occurring, but if you don't want him to come to your talkpage, you may wish to tell him to stay away from your talkpage (in clear language) and see if that works. You said that you ''apologized'' to him, but I don't consider that a good way to deal with unwanted attention. -] 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::thanks for your advice but you are distracting from the point. I have not disinvited him from my Talk page, as that is the first place for him to bring concerns about my behavior. Per ], this board is next, as .
	::::But this is about '''david's behavior.''' I believe the canvassing is sanctionable and the discussions of content, not contributor, need a warning. ] (]) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I'll also chime in and say that Jytdog seems to try to help out new editors relatively well. However, some terseness is needed in controversial topics when someone comes in with a strong viewpoint of their own. This seems to be a case more so not of a new editor being bitten, but someone coming in from an advocacy perspective with a fringe viewpoint and coming in a bit too hot to really realize the problem with that. ] (]) 16:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			:IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support warning. <s>Support temp block and warning.</s>''' I'd weakly support a temp block, but it's really the warning that would hopefully help the situation. I've been involved in some of the content in this case, but haven't been targeted by David Tornheim like Jytdog has with this hounding behavior. There's really no excuse for this behavior and it's just poisoning the well at the related articles. The canvassing is very apparent (also to a t as described by ]) as Tornheim has been selectively recruiting from editors who appear to hold his viewpoint or have been trying to further ] viewpoints in the article. If it was just a new editor reaching out to one of those folks, that could be construed as someone just learning the ropes, but not this many people. The ] behavior seems very apparent where Tornheim came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get ] in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles where other editors with fringe POVs run into trouble). Overall, this just seems to be lashing out for not understanding how Misplaced Pages works (not for a lack of others trying to help) from trying to move too fast with a certain POV. The advocacy is tricky to address at this point here and ''maybe'' could be resolved without need for ANI, but it does seem to be leading towards the personal attacks and hounding that is not appropriate in any case. ] (]) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			:<small>(involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before)</small>. To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. ] (]) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I'll also tack on there has been some battleground behavior/edit warring:
			::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.
	::* David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog.
			::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)
	::* David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason"
			:::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.
	::* Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
			:::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)
	::* David reverts again directly copying Jytdog's edit summary "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
			* '''Support'''. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for ]" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be '''extended to future employers''' too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::* I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point.
			* '''Support''' per Femke. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::* At which point, David posts a 3RR warning on my talk page after my single revert.
			* '''Support''' and will withdraw my proposal above. ] (]) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::This shows a tendency to edit war rather than come to the talk page and seemingly not understanding that if you make a change and it gets reverted, you then need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. The snark involved in copying Jytdog's edit summary about BRD is also problematic and the warning on my page seem pretty retaliatory in nature. This user is still relatively new, so I do hope changes occur, but this is looking like a difficult case that isn't just due to being a new user. ] (]) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (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)
			*::(I'm going to use the COI term with the meaning which I think you intended....IMO the Wiki-meanings are too broad and variable). IMO the golden rule (which IMO was mistakenly taken out of the COI guideline) is (paraphrasing) that where influence from the COI connection overrides the duty to edit properly in the interests/objectives of Misplaced Pages, you have an (in practice) COI. And the policy says that in the highest-risk condition (PE) they are strongly discouraged (not forbidden) from editing directly. IMO good practice in relation to this is that edits where there is '''''any''''' COI type question about the edit that they should request somebody else to put it in. While I haven't taken a deep dive on their edits, from looking at the ones presented to make the case that they are problematic, I see only minor violations of that "good practice" and no explicit violations of policy. Another consideration in my mind is that IMO '''''undisclosed''''' paid editing is a huge problem in Misplaced Pages and IMO Misplaced Pages being overly rough on '''''disclosed''''' paid editing contributes to that "undisclosed" problem. Finally, the described voluntary restrictions if adhered to (and with them as a 60k editor with only a tiny fraction of their edits being PE, I expect would happen) would remove all question for a year and then be just normal practices (and all of that inevitably under a magnifying glass, with the obvious option of coming back here if needed) IMO would solve it. Which is why I suggest (only) the voluntary restrictions at this time Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Voluntary restrictions===
	* '''Oppose temp block and warning.''' I am working on a response, which I intend to post tonight. I would appreciate a chance to respond before any action is taken. ] (]) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (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)
	* '''Comment''' - Calling for a block based on a single incident involving canvassing of four editors which occurred nearly a month ago seems on its face unreasonable. Jytdog is an involved editor in this issue, and as such, Jytdog's behavior in this lengthy interaction should be subject to scrutiny as well; "this isn't about me, this is about them" arguments are specifically discussed and dismissed in ], and "anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."] (]) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for commenting {{u|Dialectric}}, I am sorry my complaint was not formatted more clearly and that I missed your response. I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, ] and , with that post on Jimbo's page in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( on another editor's talk page... just ick. I hope that clarifies. I wouldn't have brought the block request based on the initial 4 canvasses - I agree that would not be reasonable. ] (]) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Hello North8000: to answer your comments/questions:
	::Some of this would be for Jytdog to clarify, but I didn't see a clear it's not me it's them demarcation in his post, but rather him asking that if someone really wanted to discuss his behavior, it be brought up in a different section so there could be some clarity rather than a jumbled mess. The canvassing though is only one of the problems experienced at the articles (though maybe the most actionable). Advocacy really seems to be the core problem here though, so this isn't based in a single incident. ] (]) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			:* To the first point: Yes, I understand that and agree.
	* I'd say there is nothing to do at this stage but it's clearly important to watch David Tornheim's input in relation to these articles, as he seems to be of the school that believes that anything not anti-GMO is pro-GMO, an easy mistake to make but not one that Misplaced Pages should fall for. For example, states in Misplaced Pages's voice that an experiment that led to genetically modified human children in the US was unethical and illegal "there" and in other countries (in fact it should say "in the UK" as it is ''not'' illegal in the US, where ti happened); this is attributed to "British scientists" but the story makes it clear that the criticism comes from ''some'' British scientists and is nto a considered corporate view of any British scientific body. It would have been much better to attribute the actual quotation in the source by Lord Winston, whose criticism was much more measured. But in any case this is a 2015 edit based on a 2001 story about a technique (ooplasmic transfer) that has been covered much more recently, and is intimately bound to the three-parent baby debate. As a criticism of ], it represents nothing more than a random interjection. In short, the edit represents a simplistic and partisan view of a complex topic, within a mature article. many of David's edits are similar. I think David now understands that he needs to discuss such edits in advance and achieve consensus before making edits that may be controversial. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			:* 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)
	<small>*note, created separate section for comments on my behavior below. ''this section'' is for David's behavior. I imagine this is going to get separated as new comments come in. This is the point in the thread where his comments below. ] (]) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
			== Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza ==
	::Hi {{u|JzG}} I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the '''subsequent canvassing''' that I bulleted above, ] and , with that post on Jimbo's page in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( on another editor's talk page... just ick. ] (]) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			*{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}}
	* '''Don't support'''. DavidTornheim has indeed attempted to inject content that was not supported by RS and has been looking for support. I'm not enough of a WP policy maven to weigh in on whether he's been violating the many policies cited here. However, he has in some cases responded appropriately to specific criticism and backed down. I think attempts to continue working with him are appropriate. I do wish he'd stop with the allegations. ] (]) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}}
	* <s>Regarding a block: '''Oppose''' (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: '''support'''; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: '''support'''. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)</s>Wrong place <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
	::This section is about David's behavior. Thanks for your support the warning. Blocks are meant to be educational, and I think David has no concept that his canvassing/campaigning is wrong. if you want to comment on me, you would probably best do that below. ] (]) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	* It is my opinion that the allegations raised against me by Jytdog are a direct result of my attempts to address Jytdog's behavior. Please see my response and reply to the allegations incorporated into the discussion below about Jytdog's behavior. ] (]) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	*** yes it is clear that you believe you are doing The Right Thing. The problem is that you do not understand WP nor its behavioral guidelines. This is not a place for the tactics of community activism. It's just not. In any case, this thread has zero traction. All three of our posts are TLDR and we are not going to get community feedback nor admin action. Ah well, I screwed that up. ] (]) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{u|Religião, Política e Futebol}} and {{u|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} have both been edit warring at ] over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.
	===Jytdog's behavior===
	(note - created separate section so this has its own focus, separate from the above, which is David's behavior ] (]) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC))
			Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. ] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	* <b>Response to Allegations</b>: I have been on Misplaced Pages since July 2008 and have worked on a number of different articles.&nbsp; I have never been taken to an ANI board before and have never been blocked. I have never taken anyone else to an ANI board or any other notice board. I am used to working things out on the talk page of the relevant articles.
			:Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 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. ] (]) 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.
	:I do understand Jytdog has put quite a lot of effort into revising all of the and so it is not entirely suprising there is resistance to new people making changes. However, Jytdog's treatment of new users does not follow ], especially those that raise ] concerns, which I explain below. In 2004, Jytdog said:
			*Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of '''information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family'''.
			**The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP {{u|94.63.205.236}}. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
			**{{ping|Sundayclose}} Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
			**During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, {{u|74.12.250.57}}, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, {{u|2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803}}, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
			**The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
			**On 10 January, {{ping|Religião, Política e Futebol}} made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
			**Another IP, {{u|2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40}}, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
			**On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
			**On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
			**Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
			**On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
			**Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
			**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
			*In regards to '''the mention of Baena's suicide''', this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
			**{{ping|DiaMali}} did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
			**Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
			**The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when {{ping|Ibeaa}} removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
			**On 7 January, IP {{u|2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196}} adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
			**The next user to re-add the info was {{ping|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
			**The IP {{u|2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8}} removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
			**{{ping|Sundayclose}} reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
			**Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
			**Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing {{tq|committed suicide}} for the first time in this edit, which IP {{u|50.71.82.63}} fixed. Diff:
			**Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information ''five times each'', no edit reasons in sight.
			***Zander: (above 1), , , ,
			***Ibeaa: , , , ,
			**I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
			**Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
			**On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
			**Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
			**Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
			**Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is {{tq|accurate and properly sourced}}. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the ] article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff:
			**Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
			**Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. ].
			***I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
			**After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
			**I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
			**Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem {{tq|vital enough}} to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:
			*] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: "There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up ..."
			: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)
	:Unfortunately, during this massive rewrite, as indicated above, the voices of GMO critics/consumer advocates (renamed pejoratively "anti-GMO") were compromised and the revised articles took on a Pro-GMO slant. "Anti-GMO" is an unfair label for the consumer groups, because people can be conerned about GMO's and want more testing before widespread release, without being opposed to all GMO's. This is an example edit where GMO critics' concerns are watered down to be almost unrecognizable .
			::You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to ''acknowledge'' the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. ] (]) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Given there's basically nothing on the talk page about any of this, I'd say some full-protection (or pblocks on the editors in question) for a short time may be in order. People ''need'' to discuss this on the article's talk page rather than just trying to shoehorn it into the article, and we may have to force the matter. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I would have to agree, the most we've got from the users I am concerned about is one who thinks they're above discussion, and one who thinks they're above explanation. The other user involved who was already blocked at least showed some awareness. ] (]) 22:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 ==
	:Jytdog is correct that I believe there are serious issues with lack of ] for all of the GMO articles, and my good faith efforts to address them and work with Jytdog and the others are met with these kinds of accusations--just look at my talk page.
			*{{userlinks|Manannan67}}
			] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ),
			most recently , when I discovered a they placed on . The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did one early warning from the talk page. ] (]) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			: The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to ] which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. ] (]) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The 'scientific consensus' issue is simple--there is none, and other editors have pointed this out:
			::See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to ]. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. ] (]) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* ] (])
			::: It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." ] (]) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* ] (])
			::::That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. ] (]) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* user:Arsenal lb
			::::: 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)
	:* ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> .
			::::::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)
	:English language Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and there is widespread mainstream diversity of opinion in Europe, at least, especially ENSRR . Reliable sources explain the lack of 'scientific consensus' and . Jytdog and others insist that reliable sources that do not conform to their view of the subject are fringe/advocacy groups . This is POV pushing.
			: Since it's been removed, I don't know what is in dispute. ] (]) 06:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The "dispute", {{u|Manannan67}}, is whether or not you understand the legal severity of copyright violations, and whether or not you will make a firm commitment to refrain from copyright violations in the future. ] (]) 07:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I looked at their most recent addition of significant addition prose to article space this material to the article ], made last November after he first five warnings:
			:::*{{tq|'''it seems that''' he '''traveled to different towns where there were centres of his Order with the intention of gathering information for his great work'''}}
			:::**Source:{{tq|'''It seems that''' the Cerratense '''travelled to different towns where there were centres of his Order with the intention of gathering information to write his great work'''}}
			:::*{{tq|It was intended to '''facilitate the preparation of sermons for preachers'''}}
			:::**Source:{{tq| attempting to create a hagiographic repertoire that would '''facilitate the preparation of sermons for preachers'''}}
			:::*{{tq|'''In 1259 he lived in Segovia and in 1272 in Caleruega, where Domingo de Guzmán was originally from, probably researching to write the life of the holy founder.'''}}
			:::**Source:{{tq|'''In 1259 he lived in Segovia and in 1272 in Caleruega, where Domingo de Guzmán was originally from, probably researching to write the life of the holy founder'''}}
			:::This is very obvious plagiarism of a non-free source. The fact that they, an editor with 16k+ edits, insist on viewing the inclusion of non-free external material as a dispute or sourcing issue is troubling. Could an admin please consider indefinitely blocking them from the article and draft namespaces until they understand the issues with their edits? ] (]) 07:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) ==
	:Jytdog, especially, but also Kingofaces43 and others have shown owernship behaiors ] (or ]) towards the GMO articles, especially when changes are proposed that might address the NPOV concerns. For example,
			*{{userlinks|Cherkash}}
	::User LesVegas identified the ] problem and put an NPOV tag on an GMO article and the tag was removed only 5 minutes later by Jytdog . The user attempted to put it back , and again Jytdog removed the appropriate NPOV tag only 2 minutes later , despite the fact that the user <i>did</i> discuss the NPOV problem on the talk pages () and had good reason to tag the article that continues to have ] problems.
			The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see ], ]). </br>
			The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the ] pages and even had raised the issue here , with no visible actions following.
	:Shorly after Jytdog engaged me on my talk page and I explained my concerns about lack of NPOV, he wrote, "You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be..." .
			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
	:] (]) wrote about this ] behavior as well on my talk page here with .
			They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.
	:After Jytdog bared his teeth, I was still able to find some common ground and establish some rapport with him/her. However, I felt it necessary to explain the problem of intimidating new users, as gently as possible. I did so . The situation I explained is that user Alexlikescats explained the same lack of NPOV at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (another user:107.2.182.250 chimed in, in agreement ). Only 32 minutes after Alexlikescats said the article was biased, Jytdog accused Alexlikescats of having a single-purpose-acccount , which violates the rule of ], especially the section, "Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a&nbsp;single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label&nbsp;any&nbsp;editor with such invidious titles during a dispute ". That was the last thing the user did on Misplaced Pages. See Alexlikecats, .
			Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: ,
	:When I had confronted Jytdog with the problem of intimidating new users, Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised.
			The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ].
	:Another example of Jytdog's similar treatment to a new user is
			I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content.
	:This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.
			] (]) 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)
	:When I saw yet another new user (MaxwellBarr) who tried to make good faith edits to address NPOV in a GMO article getting hit by accusations by Jtydog , I did indeed tell Jytdog again I saw that as a problem , and , while urging the user not to give up on editing the page . Unfortunately, this user appears to have been scared off as well and has not made any further contributions to Misplaced Pages . Again this is a problem with ]. This last incident pushed Jytdog to bring me to this forum claiming this confrontation was "canvassing.". I am happy to accept advice from 3rd parties on what I should do if I see a problem like that. I continue to be concerned about Jytdog's behavior of treating new users like this and having ownership behaviors like reverting any new additions and refusing to take seriously new ideas, but I am not sure what I should do about it.&nbsp; Even though I have been on Misplaced Pages for quite a while, I don't really know much about resolving disputes in the forums.&nbsp; I generally just try to talk it out with the people involved.&nbsp;Until I tried to add sourced material to articles in the GMO suite, I had never encountered such vigorous and tendentious opposition.
			::{{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)
			*::When you hold an opinion, and all you get when you express that opinion is {{tqq|multiplying warnings and threats...no support either}}, a wise man at least considers the possibility that the one in the wrong might just, in fact, be himself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Proposal - short duration block for Unas964===
	:The incident Kingofaces43 describes was resolved and . I said on the talk page, that I intended to add material another user had suggested , for which neither had specifically objected except for a blanket rejection . The two working together reverted my inclusion without discussing on the talk page and without giving a valid reason of reverting (too old and "not true" ]] are not valid reasons for rejecting material IMHO), which to me seemed like edit waring and unnecessary obstruction on their behalf as part of a ] team to accomplish 3RRR.
			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)
	:In summary, I think there are some real ] and ] behaviors on the GMO pages, and serious problems with ] that can not be addressed because of that. I have tried in good faith to address those problems and am looking towards 3rd party admin(s) who have no investment in the GMO articles to give some guidance on how I might address the problems.
			:'''Support''' I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. ] (]) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Your proposal only enhances the pro-Russian stance and if enforced will serve as evidence that the Ukrainian (and according to the International Law) point of view is censored on Misplaced Pages, also making a precedent against ]. This is harmful for the entire community that might thus be considered as anti-Ukrainian in general. ] (]) 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Oh do stop. I've been trying to be ''nice'' to you and all you've done in response is insult me repeatedly. This isn't twitter. Stop acting like it is. ] (]) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''support indef''' per the doubling down above of the ]. ] (]) 09:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I've gone ahead and indef'd. The editor - who has been around since 2019 - has apparently made all of ''one'' edit outside of this very narrow topic, and while they haven't made any articlespace edits since receiving the contentious-topic warning, their behavior in this discussion, and their talk page edits, make it clear that they are ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Caste-based disruption ==
	:Instead of a block or warning for me, I think the deserving person for sanctions should be Jytdog for biting (]) new users who do not share his/her POV and thereby "poisoning the well." ] (]) 10:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: That's unlikely to happen, because the allegation of biting relies on the idea that anti-GMO views have parity of esteem with the mainstream view. The articles right now reflect ] as a result of many years of debate between people of all shades of opinion. I understand that some people are not familiar with a lot of this, and you perhaps you don't know about the practices of ] that historically plague contentious articles. Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).
	:: We do know that people cast themselves as "consumer advocates" not anti-GMO. Antivaxers, climate deniers, creationists and many other activists opposing the scientific consensus, do the same, with some success, in that in recent years some segments of the media have fallen into the trap of believing that science and cranks are valid opposing views. Recent outbreaks of preventable disease have seen some changes here and it's becoming slightly less common to interview an antivaxer and put them up against a lone scientist representing the tens of millions who support the consensus view. The nature of a scientific consensus is that it encompasses all known facts and valid opinions about those facts.
	:: Misplaced Pages notes that there is no good evidence to support most of the harms claimed by anti-GMO activists (a few of the economic ones are entirely valid but that is a different debate). I'm a fan of the precautionary principle, but I've had to accept this view of GMOs over time. They are actually in many ways safer and less environmentally damaging than non-GMO crops: less pesticide, less fertiliser, less preservative, less chance of toxic breakdown products in the produce. It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage.
	:: This is not Misplaced Pages's problem, it's the anti-GMO movement's problem, they need to find better arguments. Obviously we also need to patiently explain the facts, but in general we already have, in talk page headers and the articles themselves. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{u|HistorianAlferedo}} has engaged in contentious ] style editing in the ] related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in ] POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as ] (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:
	==== Responses ====
			*, , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
	::articles under discussion here. broadly stated, are:
			*: clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
	::{{la|Genetically modified food controversies}}
			*, , , , : POV caste-based insertions
	::{{la|Genetically modified food}}
			*, : POV caste-based removals
	::{{la|Genetically modified crops}}
	::{{la|Genetically modified organism}}
	::{{la|Glyphosate}}
	::{{la|Monsanto}}
	::{{la|Organic food}}
	::{{la|Organic farming}}
	::OP of this subthread, making a complaint, is {{userlinks|David Tornheim}}
	::I am the one against whom David is complaining: {{userlinks|Jytdog}}
	::The complaint is: violations of ] and ]
			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)
	::*some of what David writes above is about content; this is not the place to discuss content disputes so I will not respond here.
			:], 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)
	::* With regard to claims that I ] the subject matter...
			::{{done}} ] (]) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::It it true that I watch them (I watch ~2500 articles) and in all my editing, I am keen that content be sourced from reliable, secondary sources per VERIFY, OR, RS, and MEDRS, and that content be NPOV. The GMO suite is no different.
			::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)
	:::And it is true that I am the biggest (or one of the biggest) contributor to most of these, and that they dominate my editing, if you analyze my edits by article. . i am aware of this.
			:::], 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)
	::: but I don't believe I do the behaviors described in OWN, ]. i ask myself the questions in ] all the time. But some things come close to the OWN behaviors, like
			::::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)
	:::: *the "qualifications" thing (the subject matter is technical - science and law etc.) If an editor is calm enough to actually listen, those things generally can get worked through, as they have with David twice now when he slowed down enough to actually listen - you can see that in the two examples I linked to in my complaint (] and ].
	:::: *The "comments on other editor's pages" thing comes close too. I think I have generally stayed within both the spirit and the letter of this place in talking with other editors and especially new editors, but I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.
	::* to state the obvious, GMOs are a subject matter where people come to the article with ''very strong emotions and views'' and make changes that violate NPOV, OR, RS, etc. We get lots of "driveby" edits adding bad content (violates NPOV, OR, etc) in the articles because of that. The new editor Maxwell discussed above is ''very typical'' - editors come, want to add some UNDUE matter, and never talk back. it is '''not my fault''' if people do not understand WP and do not talk back. ] does ''not'' say that "anything new editor adds is OK." It just doesn't say that.
	::* That said, I try ''very hard'' to engage in civil, PAG-based discussions with editors who are willing to talk on these pages and have received several barnstars, '''specifically''' for my efforts working with people on controversial subjects, (and this is just some of the feedback along these lines):
	:::] from {{u|7%266%3Dthirteen}}
	::: from {{u|Yobol}}
	::: from {{u|Brangifer}}
	::: from {{u| DocumentError}}
	::: from {{u| IRWolfie-}}
	::: from {{u| Epipelagic}}
	::: from {{u|SandyGeorgia}}
			== On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by ] ==
	::With regard to "engaging with new ideas" I am very happy to hear new ideas and see them implemented, or implement them myself. On the GMO suite, most people who come by are not bringing up anything new. Maxwell's edit, for example, was about the ], which was worked on vigorously as it is unfolded and is now integrated into the suite and has its own article. I'm always happy to discuss re-arranging things and have offered to discuss with David, which he has taken up.
			I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI.
	:: I am really proud that ~in general~ these articles have stayed off the drama pages, and we have not gone to Arbcom. (although there was a really bad period back in August 2013 when it got to so ugly (especially with unfounded claims of COI on my part that I took myself to COIN (none of my accusers had the sense or graciousness to even bring a case in the proper forum) and I revealed my RL identity to an oversighter - results of that are .... and that it looked like this might go to Arbcom. We avoided that.
			To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of.
	:: I have interacted with lots of folks over the past three years on these articles. I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV. I will ping some of them here, to be sure they are aware of this. {{u|Viriditas}}, {{u|Petrarchan47}}, {{u|Canoe1967}}, {{u|El duderino}}, {{u|The Banner}}, I would say are key people who have said I am a bad presence here and might like to comment. There are other editors whom I know have strong concerns with my GMO editing, for example {{u|Gandydancer}} and {{u|Groupuscule}}, but have generally not personalized it (especially not groupuscule who is always a paragon of elegance and civility). There are other editors who have generally had different perspectives from me and have really engaged in Talk discussions over the years, like {{u|Semitransgenic}}. {{u|IjonTichyIjonTichy}} and {{u|Dialectric}} have shown up more recently.
			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.
	::{{u|Lfstevens}} is fairly new to the topics and recently went over the GM Controversies with a very fine-toothed comb (thanks again for that) and may have input on this. {{u|Guettarda}} also recently came by.
			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.
	::Then there are those who have really collaborated on building the articles - {{u|Sunrise}} (not so active on them anymore), {{u|Aircorn}} (not so active on them anymore), {{u|SylviaStanley}} too, and Kingofaces, who has already weighed in above. (the article analysis tool is broken or i would list more)
			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.
	:: {{u|Tryptofish}} (away on personal matters) has been invaluable in mediating some of the conversations. I wish he were around as his feedback is wise.
			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.
	::What I am trying to say, is we have managed to keep the conversations civil enough, and focused enough on PAG based discussion of content and sources, that we have been able to resolve issues on the Talk pages or through RfC. David - a newbie, community activist - is breaking that. Making personal attacks of COI etc all over WP, trying to whip up opposition, instead of simply dealing with the content and sources in the article.
			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
	:: I am glad David finally brought this here, however. This '''is''', finally, the proper forum for raising his concerns, especially since RfC/U is now dead. . As you can see, I am taking the initiative to open this up wide. Let's get this dealt with.
			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.
	:: finally, i ask myself the questions in ] all the time. I am human and fuck up sometimes. When I do, I acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, fix it, and move on. If there is consensus that I am acting badly on this more meta-level, I look forward to hearing that. I do expect some '''strong''' accusations that I am acting badly. I do not expect that to be the consensus, but am opening this up, since we are all trapped in our own limited perspectives on the world; feedback is good. Thanks. ] (]) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			When I had to quit Misplaced Pages for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Misplaced Pages as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November this made me realise that SerChevalerie might have ] relating to my presence on Misplaced Pages itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article ]. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See . Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it.
	{{od}} I was pinged to this discussion. Which is such a mess I can't tell who is saying what about whom. <p>As a tangent/rant, I don't know why we did away with RFC/U, and instead get these long rambling incoherent threads on ANI, where everyone with an ax to grind piles on with little regard for subsequent readers or relative actionable evidence requiring admin intervention. There are frequent references in here to a "David"; for readers who don't know this "David", how about using usernames? <p> One thing that stands out to me in this discussion (because I've seen it now twice in just a few days, reference the recent thread about {{u|Formerly 98}}) are these two statements:<blockquote>This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.</blockquote> and <blockquote>] (]) wrote about this ] behavior as well on my talk page here with .</blockquote> Both Viriditas and Petrarchan47 are mentioned several times in this discussion, which is not surprising considering that both of them have long been grinding an ax with medical content (ref threads about a year ago on marijuana, and recent threads about {{u|Formerly 98}}-- they both seem to show up whenever controversial medical content is involved). That Viriditas wrote negatively about a medical editor on someone's talk page is not evidence of anything, except, well ... that Viriditas frequently does that. In spite of a long-standing ax-grinding with me, Viriditas nonetheless posts to my talk page when he wants to go after another editor.<p> Is any admin action required? I don't know, because I haven't read through yet another long incoherent discussion here that would have been better served at RFC. <p>I do know that something should be done about Viriditas and Petrarchan47, though. ] (]) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:{{u|SandyGeorgia}}, I asked for a short block and warning for David Tornheim way above, which is still an open matter. He responded by making a complaint about me, which is in this subsection. I expected this, and made my original request in part to provoke this, to get David to finally raise his concerns in the right place. I do want the short block and warning, however and think it is warranted - my posting was not POINTy. ] (]) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			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)
	:: Thanks for the subsequent clarification. But more generally, I just do not understand how ANI is supposed to result in anything productive in the absence of RFC/U. Multiple RFC/Us are long overdue on several editors, and yet, we no longer have such a forum. I agree with you that ANI is ''now'' the only place to raise issues, but don't think engaging here is likely to be productive. It will result in useless section headings and drahmaz like the section just below this, though. ] (]) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			:I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented.
	::: I see the offensive section heading has now been removed-- thanks to whomever. ] (]) 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			:{{Blockquote|"During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had {{Diff|Tsumyoki|1240530309}} as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]."}}
			:In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.
			:If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided ]. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.
			:I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to ], but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. ] (]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. ] 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ]: ] and ] behaviour. ==
	;SandyGeorgia's concerns
	SandyGeorgia, I have no idea what you are talking about. With that said, I would like to clear up some of your glaring misconceptions:
	*Petrarchan47 retired a year ago from Misplaced Pages. My understanding is that she recently dropped in and made several comments and then went back into retirement. I fail to see what she has to do with any of this.
	*David Tornheim recently left me a message on my talk page, and I responded to him on his talk page in regards to his dispute with Jytdog. I also commented about Jytdog's treatment of David Tornheim on Jytdog's talk page. However, '''I have not edited in the GMO topic area since 2013 and I would ask that you stop trying to bring me back into it.'''
	*As for your extremely bizarre claim that I am involved in some kind of "long-standing ax-grinding" with you, I'm afraid you flatter yourself as I have no idea what you mean. You appear to harbor deep grudges and then project them on to other editors.
	*Your claim that I post to your talk page when I want to go after other editors is simply absurd. Your diff shows that I was offering you support in a conflict with another editor that I had the same experience with, as I felt I could offer a corroborating opinion. It shows nothing about going after anyone, and I've never pursued the matter.
			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.
	Now, please stop drawing me into your petty squabbles and role-playing fantasies. I have not edited in this topic area since 2013 and I have no desire to be pulled back into it. ] (]) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Thanks for weighing in, in any case, V. I won't ping you since you don't want to be involved. ] (]) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::The point is, I'm not involved. And yet, SandyGeorgia has created this fantasy world where I'm somehow the evil ringleader lurking in the shadows. This is bizarre behavior. ] (]) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::and you are the 2nd person who is unhappy with David for having tried to drag them back into this. I am sorry for that. I've seen some of the work you've been doing since you stopped being involved, via watching Trypto's Talk page. happy editing to you. ] (]) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I admit, I've criticized David Tornheim's methods on his talk page. I think he needs to take a rest from the GMO battlefield for a bit and focus on improving ''one'' article. He's scattered all over the place and that makes it seem like he's less interested in improving an article than in fighting the good fight. On the other hand, he's had a lot of trouble editing in this area because of the guardians. It might go a long way, Jytdog, if you could offer to work with him on a single article in a collaborative manner. ] (]) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I've dealt straight and clean with any objections or ideas he has had, on specific content or sourcing, and will keep doing so. There is no way to respond to Big Global Statements, as you pointed out. thanks. ] (]) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	* Jytdog and KingofAces43 both revert too much in my opinion and Jytdog has done so to some of my edits. The intense emotions that accompany the GMO controversy pushes everybody involved to their limits. That said, when I identified RS material that suggested a problem with glyphosate, Jytdog added it to the article unbidden. I'd just like everybody to spend less time on this controversy and more time on the articles. ] (]) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::thanks for that feedback. ] (]) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	* My name was included in the above sections, so I guess I ought to respond. In my opinion, the GMO articles were a mess before Jytdog reworked them. Often they were eye-wateringly one sided, the same information was repeated in several places, poor English, poor references, information out of date, and so on. Jytdog has made a marvelous job of re-writing them in a neutral factual tone in Misplaced Pages style in spite of massive attacks on him. He has reverted several of my own insertions but I can always see the logic behind what he has done. I congratulate him on the vast amount of excellent work he has done.] (]) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC
	* Regarding a block: '''Oppose''' (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: '''support'''; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: '''support'''. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) <small>Moved from section above, wrong person</small>
	* '''Oppose''' Block/Ban Having read through the supposed "bullying behaviour" of new editor MaxwellBarr, I find it not to be any sort of bullying at all. The editor (MaxwellBarr) first puts in a spam link to gopro.com that is bot deleted. Then the editor immediately puts in a bunch of material that is unref'd. Jytdog reverts but fully explains his (proper) reasoning. Then the editor inserts a random citation at the bottom of the article, and Jytog civilly removes and explains. That is how this is supposed to work. ] (]) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			(The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value)
	* I am preparing further response.] (]) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC). (It is now posted below. ] (]) 22:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC))
	::If you do I suggest you keep it brief. We have both already left ] here, which is probably why we are getting so few responses. ] (]) 13:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Jytdog, I appreciate your desire for brevity and to avoid worsening the ]. I wish you had considered that <i>before</i> creating the problem by posting a wall of text. I am glad you said something here, because it is indicative of your attitude in the general case: Your contributions are held to be more valuable than other people's contributions. The rules do not apply to you as much as they apply to other contributors.] (]) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like.
	*'''Comment''': Based on my own experiences, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Jytdog does demonstrate behavioral issues that require an admins attention as other editors have noted above. I included a few diffs which will help confirm the bullying behavior mentioned above:
	* <---Bullying?
	* <---passive aggressive bullying of a newbie with mention of ARBCOM because they disagreed?
			More specifically this line:
	:Despite Jytdog's good intentions, he has a rather skewed interpretation of ] and ] guidelines in that he believes those guidelines supersede policy. I imagine there are quite a few editors who have been targeted under the pretense of ] and ], and would gladly provide more diffs to demonstrate same, but I see no reason to include them all here. It also appears we've been getting a ] as it relates to the ongoing abuse of WP:MEDRS by the same select few.
	* <---reverted ''(Undid revision 650497838 by 2602:306:836F:A3E0:A17D:786E:1D03:BE85 (talk) revert content based on WP:PRIMARY source per WP:MEDRS)'' Excuse me, but the passage he reverted was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and according to ], {{xt|Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or '''systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals'''.....}} . How is that revert not an abuse of the guideline to control article content?
	* <--- reverted (Undid revision 646440329 by AmiLynch (talk) revert addition of content based on WP:PRIMARY source that violates WP:MEDRS) Same song second verse. The excuse that the passage ''violates a guideline'' is not cause for a revert. How does one ''violate'' a guideline anyway? Furthermore, the passage came from the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 26 (2014) Again, it appears as though he is controlling article content per ] which actually is a violation of '''policy'''.
			{{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)
	:Granted, there are vandals and CAM spammers who need curtailment, but some of Jytdog's targets have been GF editors, including newbies who actually added passages citing RS in adherence to ]. In most cases, all it requires to become a card carrying bullseye of the ''quack-watch cabal'' is to express a little opposition or criticism of certain interpretations of mainstream views regarding ], ] and/or related categories. It reminds me of the trials and tribulations of ] and his sheriff's posse, only now we're subjected to a 21st century ] which actually determines what information will or won't be allowed in articles regardless of PAG. Hello ] and ] - is anybody home? I don't doubt that the majority of editors on both sides of the isle have good intentions - most are highly intelligent experts in their respective fields - unfortunately (and representative of what happens when power corrupts), innocent editors inadvertently fall victim to the demands of the cabal, and open collaboration is replaced by censorship in a "]" environment. Quite frankly, few editors survive such an onslaught. The result is an encyclopedia that reflects a one-sided view via censored topics.
	:In the interim, Jytdog says whatever he wants to say, apologizes to those he has offended whenever he gets around to it, strikes what he says, hats and archives it, resumes bullying and his normal pattern of tendentious editing, attempts to baffle admins hoping they will swallow his BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS because they're inundated with work and are less inclined to analyze the material presented.
	:I can't help but believe it's part of his baffling exercise which usually precedes the dazzling. For example, it may be difficult for some admins to see his strikes as a tactical measure. If there were only a few, I might be inclined to believe he was being sincere, but are the strikes a true representation of regret for the right reasons? Admins will only see the one or two diffs he might provide in his own defense with a statement something like, ''I thought about what I said, realized it was wrong so I struck through it.'' The admins and/or reviewers may think, "Ok - he acted in GF by striking through that comment." Are you sure about that? I think it requires a little more research to see just how many strikes are involved in his repertoire. I find it hard to believe such behavior is a common practice among GF editors. Perhaps I'm wrong in my evaluation. If I am, I will gladly strike through my comments and archive them. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("{{tq|or called for a moratorium on changes}}") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content ({{tq|Only one active discussion-engaged user}}). Other editors, like @], have been calling them out for this as well.
	:*These observations are in alignment with my own, and with several others. For example, in the midst of a year-long, intense debate at ], Jytdog joined the discussion and essentially tried to take over the process. and he apologized, exactly as Atsme describes above, and then left the page. In the comments on the page I've linked, ] said this about Jytdog's approach: ''I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision."'' and ''some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda''.
	::I do agree that his tactics deserve an impartial look from *uninvolved* admins. It is my opinion and personal experience that Jytdog come across as a bully/dictator and may be inadvertently working against WP's goal of retaining editors. I had an experience similar to David's in that I was editing here for a few years and hadn't seen the inside of a noticeboard aimed at me until I had the misfortune of editing a GMO-related article. This is a tactic Jytdog and his buddies use unabashedly. It serves to scare off editors who question the neutrality of his work, if nothing else, and the articles go ignored and remain unchanged. (It is not a done deal that the GMO articles are perfectly NPOV, and the claim is ridiculous on its face.) Even when no action from an ANI is warranted, the editor's reputation has been sullied - with David in this instance being lumped in, sans evidence, with the "anti-vaccers" (read: crazy and not to be trusted). '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: {{reply to |Atsme}} And excuse me, but the most damning evidence you can find is Jytdog reverting the addition of ''primary studies''? We don't use the thousands of primary studies published daily peer-reviewed journals; we use the secondary sources, and you already noted that according to ], {{tq|Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals}}. If you don't understand that publishing a single trial in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it a literature review or a systematic review, you shouldn't be criticising the actions of editors who do. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove , , and because they are case studies - primary studies and not of value for making medical claims on Misplaced Pages. The only {{tq|"BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS"}} are yours above. --] (]) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{reply to|RexxS}} no, it wasn't the most damning, there are way more, but those two were enough to demonstrate behavioral issues. FYI - the 1st revert sourced a published article that was cited in 2 different reviews - 1 systematic review - Migraine in Adults: Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments and 1 PubMed Central article Italian guidelines for primary headaches . The 2nd revert sourced an article that mined data from 120 reports and summarized the findings in a report published in ''The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine'', a book published by IOS Press, which would fall under {{xt|A secondary source in medicine '''summarizes one or more primary''' or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, '''or to combine the results of several studies.'''}} <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: That's complete and utter nonsense. Two of the three sources are clearly '''primary''' and the other is dubious. If you even bothered to look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667978 you'd see "Publication Types: Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial". '''Studies and RCTs are primary sources'''. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/1021h330k91qv844/?genre=article&issn=0924-6479&volume=26&issue=2&spage=109 is a '''report by the authors based on a website they set up''' to collect self-reported data. It's neither a systematic nor literature review - PubMed doesn't even classify it - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508. If you read the third source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173768 it says "Publication Types: Case Reports". '''Case reports are primary sources'''. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove them. If you think these are the sort of sources that should be in our medical articles, you need to be banned from ever touching a medical article article again. Competence is required. --] (]) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::{{od|:::}}Utter nonsense is believing dubious justifies a revert, or that the suggested guidelines in MEDRS must be followed explicitly, or that they should be treated the same way we treat BLP violations. Let's not forget that today's mainstream science was yesterday's fringe. ] reads: {{xt|It is a generally accepted standard that editors '''should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.'''}} It further explains: {{xt|The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge.}} You don't revert just because it doesn't follow MEDRS. Who came up with such a nonsense idea? The most important aspect of editing is having the '''freedom to do so in an open editing environment'''. Bottomline, the passages Jytdog reverted in the examples I provided above were not themselves considered policy violations as was Jytdog's ] behavior. DS, blocks and topic bans are not initiated because an editor wants to add information to improve an article and didn't cite a particular source Jytdog determines to be a RS. If other editors question a source, we have a ''citation needed template'' for just that purpose, and I'm pretty sure Jytdog knows how to use it. If I may recommend the following passage in the quote box at ]: {{xt|...This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. '''Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries."'''}} I find the latter to be valuable information to keep in mind before your next revert. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 21:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: So you've shifted your stance again. This time it's "give us the freedom to stuff articles with today's latest fad as illustrated by this single case study". Well, no. Here's what the opening line of ] states: {{tq|"Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, '''it is vital''' that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."}} (my emphasis) That has to be the first and foremost consideration for including content in any article that has medical claims. MEDRS has the consensus of the community and it spells out that it is '''vital''' to base our articles on secondary sources. Not "optional", not "preferable", but "vital". So of course the proper action is to remove dubious claims sourced to primary sources. And yet you want to pillory Jytdog for simply insisting that we only use the best quality sources for medical claims. I've seen far too many SPAs trying to undermine MEDRS to sit back and watch you try to do the same as them. MEDRS is the bulwark that prevents every pharma shill from stuffing our articles with "subtle" advertising; or every "true believer" from promoting their peculiar view of medicine - all based on readily available primary sources. Bottomline is that the edits that Jytdog reverted were clear breaches of MEDRS and he not only had every right to revert them, but a duty to Misplaced Pages to do so. --] (]) 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.
	* <b>Reply</b> by David Tornheim:
			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 am glad that Jytdog is reflecting on his/her behavior that I raised about new users, when he said above:
			'''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::"comments on other editor's pages"... I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.” ()
			The page-in-question ''should'' be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. ] (]) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I do feel ] by Jtydog and this feeling continues from these allegations and the vigor which he continues to fill my talk pages even during this ANI ( and )—he has put more than twice as many edits to my talk page as I have. ()
			: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)
	:How can I be stalking him/her, when s/he keeps showing up on my talk page with endless allegations like those lodged here? This is not about me: Jytdog appears to do this to anyone who tries to edit the GMO suite of articles in ways that he does not approve of, in particular new users who can be scared away. The only reason we are here (in ANI) is because I have been editing on Misplaced Pages for a while, and cannot be accused of ], and have not been intimidated in letting Jytdog ] the articles.
			: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 disagree that a determination of whether ] has occurred is dependent on the outcome of a content dispute. New users should be welcome even if other users think correctly or incorrectly that the new user's POV is ]. Please note that a consensus can change, but organic consensus can be stifled by ] people who do not agree with a consensus achieved at one point in history. Also, a consensus can be achieved that does not adhere to other Misplaced Pages policies: For example, it may be based on inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, original research or insufficient use of all reliable sources, ], etc.
			: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)
	:It has been stated that that some GMO articles are “mature” articles. However articles on Misplaced Pages are never “done” (] and ]). I am not aware of any policy that says a “mature” article requires a higher threshold for changes or improvement than a brand new article, and Misplaced Pages policies make it quite clear that users should be ] and correct articles that have problems (]). That an article has a long history is not a reason to avoid correcting errors and problems with it (]). ] includes “adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced."
			*: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 ().
	:To <b>]</b> <small>(])</small>: you said, “Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).”
			: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)
	:Jytdog has accused me of canvassing by talking to new or existing users anywhere but the article talk page (although sometimes my attempts to do that are censored by Jytdog and/or KingofAces ). Jytdog has said I am stalking him/her if I interact with a new user after Jytdog scolded them and I have tried to encourage them not to feel intimidated.
			:{{tq|Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.}}
	:What do you propose I do if I were to see this behavior of ] from Jytdog or any other user? I noted this ] behavior in Jytdog and all attempts on my part to address it only made things worse. I am very open to any suggestions about the proper way to address it in a way that would not cause the reaction I witnessed from Jytdog, which is to accuse me of canvassing and stalking.
			:It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. ] 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I think the behavioral problems here are likely to go away if Jytdog learns that his ] , ], and POV pushing behaviors are in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. I think he is a good editor who sometimes forgets that we are all here to make an encyclopedia, not to be the 'guardians of Truth” ]
	:-] (]) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Proposal to close===
			::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)
	*'''Support''' as proposer per the excellent comments by Lfstevens above. This thread no longer serves any purpose. There are problems with David Tornheim's edits in as much as there are issues with Jytdog's behavior. Dispute resolution is the best way to handle this, as ANI is ''not'' setup to deal with this current issue. Use the RFC process to resolve content disputes on the talk page. ] (]) 01:18, 11 March 2015 (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.
	*'''Oppose'''. There is a distinct imbalance between the evidence of problems with David Tornheim's edits and the evidence of Jytdog's behaviour. In fact the evidence adduced by diffs of Jytdog's behaviour was a completely unfounded misrepresentation of ] as I've shown above. You can't simply brush away the clearly documented problems with David Tornheim's edits by calling them equal to Jytdog's policy-compliant actions (that Atsme tarnished through Atsme's lack of understanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources). --] (]) 02:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			::If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources.
	::You might want to read my response to you above regarding primary and secondary sources, and what '''guidelines''' are applicable to the actual passages that were reverted. Sometimes verifiable requires more than a click and a revert. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: I've read it and it's clear you have no clue what a primary source is. If you can't tell the difference between case studies or RCTs and secondary sources, you have no business criticising someone like Jytdog who can. Your intervention here is spurious at best. --] (]) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)		::On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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)
	::::Read it again. You are confusing a suggested guideline with adherence to policy. Bullying people into using RS you and a few others consider acceptable is not acceptable, and neither is reverting another editor's contribution simply because you don't like the source. I think it contributes to the reason we are here now. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::See ]: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
	::::: You read it again. There's nothing "suggested" about ]. They enjoy the consensus of the community and you'd better have a damn good reason to claim your edit gets to be an exception to them. What was so extraordinary about the edits that Jytdog reverted that they shouldn't be subject to MEDRS? It's the community that agreed MEDRS, so it's you and your tiny band who find MEDRS inconvenient who are pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. It's not my judgement of what's acceptable; it's the judgement of the community. It's not a dislike of a source; it's a dislike of POV-pushers who try to make medical claims based on feeble evidence. If you make a habit of pushing dubious medical claims based on primary sources - assuming you can figure out what they are - I predict you'll be back here soon enough. --] (]) 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist?
	::::::On the contrary, guidelines are guidelines, and they are suggested best practices. No matter how good the intentions of MEDRS are, it's a guideline that can be abused to promote biased views. The same is true of the FRINGE guideline. Neither of these things are policies nor should they be treated as such. What tends to happen is that editors like yourself yell "MEDRS!" and/or "FRINGE!" when there is the slightest bit of criticism against a medical view or perspective that has substantial opposition and or alternative views. Often times we find that these so called "establishment" medical views are corporate-funded and distorted, such as AAAS uncovering the manipulation of NIH health guidelines by the sugar industry from 1959-1971. Sorry, but medical content is not immune from corporate bias, and both MEDRS and FRINGE are abused to perpetuate this bias, which is why we rely on the NPOV policy above and beyond any project-promoted guideline. It is of note that GMO critics have made the same claims about corporate bias in the "established" GMO literature. MEDRS and FRINGE are frequently cited to prevent other perspectives from being presented. '']'' covers the specifics of how this works in the real world. This is why, at the end of the day, this is a content dispute, with some editors trying to falsely elevate guidelines in order to bypass the NPOV policy and filter out critical viewpoints outside the consensus established by Big Pharma. ] (]) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::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)
	::::::: There's nothing contrary about it: guidelines are indeed documented best practice, as agreed by the community. There's nothing "suggested" about guidelines; they are not optional to be disregarded at will as you seem to think. Don't bother deflecting by going off on tangents, just concentrate on your campaign against MEDRS and your attempt to criticise an editor who followed "best practice" by removing claims that cited only primary sources. Let's be clear: do you support the notion of using primary sources to insert medical claims into Misplaced Pages? Yes or no? Then we can see what your agenda is here. --] (]) 02:09, 13 March 2015 (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)
	::::{{od}}I will not belabor the point that guidelines are not policies because the tone of your responses is somewhat elevated, so I will end my participation in this sideline discussion by suggesting that you review ] wherein it clearly states: {{xt|The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Misplaced Pages:No original research).}} I try to adhere to '''policy''' and use guidelines for...well, guidelines. You might also want to read: ] and ]. To keep reverting and/or deleting the edits of others simply because you think the passage isn't properly sourced according to a specific guideline could very well be considered disruptive. Not following a guideline isn't the same as violating policy, the latter of which is subject to enforcement. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 00:50, 14 March 2015 (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)
	*'''Support''' to close and move to more appropriate venues such as dispute resolution, per Viriditas. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			::You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning?
	** This is ]. Look at the page -> the box on the right -> third heading: "Conduct disputes" -> first entry: "Administrator assistance (Request)". That's here. The only other venue for conduct disputes is RfArb. Is that what you want? Are you going to file the case? If not, perhaps it's better to let the community come to a conclusion here, even if it takes a few days. --] (]) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			::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)
	***Stop the badgering, RexxS. You know very well that DR in this context refers to "civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages" ''about content''. ANI is not the place for that. ] (]) 02:40, 11 March 2015 (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.
	***** Don't accuse me of badgering when that's exactly what you're doing. ANI is one of the only two venues left for DR of conduct issues and you're simply trying to close down a discussion that's not going the way you like. This isn't a ''content'' issue, it's a '''conduct issue''' and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not. --] (]) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	******It's a content dispute about GMO. You are badgering people who disagree and I and others see no purpose or reasonable outcome to this discussion, which is why I've proposed closing it. I have ''zero'' involvement in the GMO debate. The extent of my involvement is from ''two years ago'', when I covered the protests that took place where I live and when I wrote about the larger movement from a journalistic perspective. Get a grip. ] (]) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	******* It's a conduct dispute about David Tornheim's behaviour, although I can see you'd like to pretend it's something else. Here's a clue: the title is "Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO". Canvassing, hounding and allegations of bad faith are '''not''' content issues. So you can stop your badgering and attempts at deflection. If you want to talk about content, clear off to the article talk page and let those who understand the difference get on with discussing the behavioural matters. --] (]) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::: guys, fwiw, you have each made your points and are unlikely to convince each other. Whoever closes will take your arguments into account. thanks. ] (]) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' in agreement with DR. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	* Support; overdue. It is ''not'' the function of ANI to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other. I encourage all parties discussed here to reflect upon their ''own'' behavior and take steps to address the concerns raised, and worry less about the shortcomings of others. See ]. <small>]</small> 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	* I would be fine with a close if folks feel that there has been enough discussion. However I '''disagree''' that this is a content dispute. I do not raise ANIs spuriously; I think David's canvassing and NPA '''behavior''' is at least warn-able. I came here looking for that; continued accusations of COI are DISRUPTIVE and I feel I am being stalked. David is doing these policy-violating behaviors because he believes I am corrupt (which is out of bounds) and that I have problems with ] and he doesn't know how to address problems in WP, and instead seems to be resorting to the kind of community activism tactics that he uses in the RW (per his user page). His attempts to raise BOOMERANG issues is normal, and I expected it and indeed hoped for it, so that whatever might be legit in David's concerns could be addressed in the appropriate forum, '''which is indeed this forum.''' There is no other place where it could be addressed. I am interested to get community feedback on OWN ( maybe the community will judge that I have issues with that - just because David doesn't understand WP doesn't mean he might not have a point, and we can all be blind to our own faults. I do think my behavior is OK. but I could be wrong. I expect random haters to pop up here and add garbage to the thread). I would appreciate if folks focus on the issues actually being raised and examples provided, as hard as that is with the TLDR posts, off-topic stuff, and our busy lives. Thanks. ] (]) 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here. But in all of the above, do you know if anyone pointed out the proper channel's where David might get assistance, instead of canvassing? Like adopt-a-user, the teahouse, and what ever? If not we could gather up a few links to what ever and give them to them.] (]) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thanks {{u|Serialjoepsycho}} I explained to David how concerns about COI are handled at the bottom of (in response to David's question about how COI is handled in WP). Dialectric gave more advice about dispute resolution and . The canvassing warning I gave David points to ] and that article explicitly tells you how to bring up concerns in various forums as well. One can lead a horse to water... I don't see that anybody pointed David specifically to Teahouse or adopt-a-user.] (]) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I think its ] and ]if he's not.] (]) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::fwiw, {{u|Serialjoepsycho}}... responding to what you wrote above ("You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here"). David pretty much views my posting here as "bullying" - so while ''i'' might take what has been said here as a warning for David, what I would like, is that ''David'' take at least a warning from this - a warning from the community, not from me. The closer will judge if that is warranted or not, of course. ] (]) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::No doubt. I agree with alot of the positions you have highlighted. I only mention the above so that if he does canvass again this can be pointed to. Also so that he can be informed about these places where he can seek help, whether or not he's banned.] (]) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support close''' with part of the resolution being that David seek help through either ], ], or ], or some similar venue regarding matters of policies and guidelines. ] (]) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support close.''' This has gone on enough and is looking to just be a drama-fest for those with a chip on their shoulder. A formal warning at the close for David could still be helpful if it doesn't seem like the point is getting across that his behavior was problematic (not sure where he's sitting currently). It's hard to deal with folks pushing ] ideas into articles, and they often don't react kindly when they come in strongly with their own point of view to get it rejected. There are always going to be people that get ticked off about that in science topics especially, and I don't think there's much we can do about that unfortunately. Doesn't seem like there's anything more to do here. ] (]) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	* This is really confusing. Yesterday, I saw this was closed. I mistakenly read that to mean it was like a court case, that it was closed, over, final, done, resolved, a decision was made, etc., and I (and others) could continue other more productive work without having to monitor it. I mistakenly also believed that if a new case or issue was to arise, I would get notice and new arguments would begin there. I am really glad I looked again, or I wouldn't have known that the resolution had unraveled and that a whole new set of voices have appeared shifting the balance yet again with old voices taking new positions vying for a resolution more to their liking hoping the new voices would side with them and those who disagreed might lose interest. To be honest, it seems pretty chaotic. I like the legal system a lot more where you have a <s>non-partisan</s> neutral judge who is an expert in the law and is supposed to give decision based on the law, work on specific time constraints and limits on the amount of material submitted and the relevance of that material rather than this chaotic free for all <s>that is very partisan</s> that seems to keep going on as long as anyone doesn't like the result... That said, I guess I need to respond yet again...] (]) 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (<i>struck word "partisan" per and my response . My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.] (]) 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</i>)
	* As you can tell above, I am frustrated this was re-opened. However, there may be some value to that. I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the ], and see that I misunderstood it and that ] (]) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert <i>without</i> going to the talk page. I did go to ], ] and ] and utilized all three as recommended above. <s>As I said above, partisanship seems to be compromising the resolution process. It seems Jytdog and his supporters want me punished/warned and Jytdog to not be punished/warned, and my supporters want Jytdog punished/warned and me to be off the hook.</s> (<i>struck word "partisan" per and my response . My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.] (]) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</i>) From looking at what Jytdog wrote , it looks to me like both Jytdog and I will be willing to admit responsibility for the problems between us if the other does the same. I will be willing to go there if: either:
	::(1) neither of us is punished
	::(2) or both of us is punished/sanctioned/warned equally.
	:It would be grossly unfair if one was sanctioned and the other not sanctioned. <s>That will only infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road. I am hoping there is a way so that we can all be on the same "side". This does not need to be a "war" or a "battlefield".</s> (<i>struck word "partisan" and suggestion of "sides" per and my response . My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.] (]) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</i>)
	:SO INSTEAD I PROPOSE THIS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES HERE:
	::<s>(1) Everyone who has been partisan stops adding material and arguing with each other, including my supporters (<<<THANK YOU!)and Jytdog's supporters:
	:::] (])
	:::] (])
	:::<b>]</b> <small>(])</small>
	:::<span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span>
	:::<s>] (])
	:::] (])
	:::] (])
	:::] (])
	:::<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>]
	:::'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>'''
	:::] (])
	:::] (])
	:::] (])</s> (<i>struck word "partisan" per and my response . My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.] (]) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</i>)
	::(2) No new users come into the discussion except by mutual agreement of ] (]) and me.
	::(3) Other than ] (]) and me, only those who have shown a strong middle ground (i.e. noting problems of both parties) stay:
	:::] (]), ], <small>]</small>. In fact, I would be okay with just a discussion between ] (]), <small>]</small> and me
	::(4) The goal of further discussion per <small>]</small> "is not...to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other." Indeed. That will not accomplish anything. However, I also think that to "reflect" on behavior will not make the problems go away.
	::(5) Instead, the goal of continued discussion here will be to IMPROVE COMMUNICATION between ] (]) and me, using a NEUTRAL 3rd PARTY. I propose <small>]</small> for that.
	:Jytdog: What do you think? With the help of neutral third party (<small>]</small>) and possibly also Lfstevens, A1candidate, I think I could answer the question you asked me .
	:] (]) 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Haha. -] (]) 11:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::David, there are many things wrong or just odd about what your write above. Generally, you just don't understand how this place works, and you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you. I won't address everything, but I really object to your (again, and wrongly again) guessing about my motivations and what I will do; you speak only for yourself when you write "That {namely one of us being sanctioned and the other not} will infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road." And there is no competition here; nothing here is about "winning" or "losing" and I am sorry you view it that way. I have brought up issues with your behavior; the community will decide if those are real issues or not, and if so what to do about them. Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around. All that said, if you want to talk with me through some third party - if that would help you somehow - I would be open to that, as weird as that is. I recommend that you do not try to work with A1 on that, as A1 and I are often on different sides of disputes over alt med health content. But this is not a content dispute where mediation would be helpful. The two times you have actually raised content issues at articles, we have worked through those fairly well; we don't need DR/mediation. My issues are with your campaigning/canvassing, and your following me around accusing me of COI. You think I have issues with OWN. Those are things the community can and should look at it and make decisions about. ] (]) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Do you really need to talk to me in such a condescending manner? That is not helpful saying "you just don't understand how this place works" and "you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you". I have listened to plenty of advice and used it, even in this discussion. Guessing about motivations? What about you and all your claims here that I am an "activist" and that I am applying activism to the articles? While you are a self-admitted biology scientist working at a University in real life and are practicing your slanted views of the science of GMO's in the articles, and trying to convince everyone you are neutral and objective when many can plainly see that you are not? You said to me that at Misplaced Pages "we don't care what you do in real life". Well, if that is so, why did you bring it up? It's a double-standard.
	:::I have not gone around accusing you of COI. You don't need to have a COI to put PR materials supporting GMO's in the articles any more than those who put Arturo's work on BP into the BP article. The people who did that might think BP can do no wrong and that everyone else who has something negative to say about BP is an "activist", a "charlatan", "crank", "Luddite" or ] or anti-BP, anti-Oil and part of the conspiracy of the "War on Oil". If you believe the PR materials from industry are true and incorporate them, that doesn't mean you have a COI. But the article becomes slanted if it is composed of PR work from the industry. That's what I said on Jimbo's page--that the articles are slanted and pro-industry. I have never accused you of COI. I said the material is slanted. And when new users try to add material critical of GMO's I tell that that you and your colleagues will oppose addition of material that is critical of GMO's, why and how, which is telling them the truth about what happens on the GMO articles. I don't see why the users should not be informed of what is going on, why they are going to receive unreasonable opposition to reasonable proposed changes, and why they are getting allegations, threats and hints not to be BOLD on their talk pages. I think they have a right to know that when you show up trying to scare them off.
	:::"Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around." You speak as if the two are *completely* unrelated. They are not. That's why BOTH of us are here. I have said time and time again that my behavior that you call "stalking" and "canvassing", is my attempt to mitigate the damage you do in dealing with new users. Something quite a few others have noticed as well and brought plenty of supporting evidence for. I have asked others here specifically the best way to deal with that if you or anyone else treats new users inappropriately or condescendingly or with threats of ugliness as you did early on with me, and I am awaiting advice on that. Calling it "stalking" and "canvassing" is not useful feedback. I do not understand why that is not obvious. It seems to me you think you have a right to talk to new users on the GMO articles as you please, but if I talk to the same new user, that's not okay, then it is "canvassing" and "stalking". If rather than accusing me of stalking you said, "Yes, David, maybe I was too rough on the new user. I'm sorry for that", this entire ANI could have been avoided. But instead, you got mad at me for confronting you about it and can't see that the two are directly related.] (]) 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}} is David's post to the teahouse, which ends with "In other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Misplaced Pages been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?" And is the new coop project David started - a project to "deal with industry slant in Misplaced Pages articles." Oy... '''more of the same campaigning behavior.''' But maybe someone will give good advice. ] (]) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I hope they do give some good advice. Back when this was happening with the BP article, and if you were as new as me and wanted advice on how to deal with the ]ers of the BP article who insisted on the BP PR materials, and you knew the owners were going to drag you to ANI accusing you of "canvassing" if you tried to talk to anyone but the owners about the problem of slant, how would you word it when asking for advice?] (]) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::First, if i were inexperienced as you, i would be way more tentative than you have been, and would hold back from drawing big, strong, global conclusions. I would go ask at the teahouse, "I think article X is messed up and not NPOV...how do I fix it?" They would tell you to ] - the same advice you have been given many times, which is focus on content, not contributor. '''Deal with actual content, one thing at a time.''' If you think some content is missing from an article, or some content is being given UNDUE weight, try to fix it, one bit at a time. One bit at a time. If people object to your edit, listen to what they say, ask for the basis in policy or guideline. Go read the policy or guideline, and try to understand its heart. Go back and look at the source and content under discussion, and really consider it again, in light of PAG. Let the source and PAG and what other people say, speak to you. If the objection still doesn't make sense to you, '''ask (really ask) more at the article Talk page.'''' If the responses still don't make sense, start working ], which is usually to go ask at the Talk page of the relevant policy or guideline, or relevant content noticeboard, and '''try to understand, and really listen to what other editors say'''. Once you have done all that, and the objection still doesn't make sense, use whatever next ] process makes sense, to deal with that specific content. One thing at a time. If in the course of that, you find that some behavioral policy or guideline is being broken, bring ''that specific behavior'' up to the editor at his or her talk page, focused on the concrete behavior, supported by diffs (not focused on their motivations- as I have told you, we do not do psychoanalysis here, we don't speculate about what motivates somebody - we focus on concrete behavior, and actual content and sources) and citing PAG. If the editor doesn't change his or behavior, and you are able to establish a pattern of that behavior, you can bring a case here, at ANI, about that editor's pattern of behavior, concisely, supported by actual diffs showing the behavior, and citing the actual PAG that is being violated. Simple, concrete, step by step. Without all the dramatic, global language. Simple. Concrete. That is how we work here. Instead, you have charged into this topic with a very strong, glaring even, pre-existing POV on GMOs, and have thrown around these big claims around about corruption, POV, etc. in every place you can find. You are a campaigner and you have made me the target of your campaign. It is ugly, icky, and profoundly un-wikipedian. Not what we do here, not how we act here. ] (]) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::You’ve been doing this for ''years'' and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been ''very'' explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @]’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)
	::::<u>responding to .</u> david, you alone are responsible for your behavior, as I am for mine. I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat. I am a human, and an editor here, just like you. Your focus on me is bizarre and is your choice, and the way you are dealing with your concerns about my behavior, is not how we do things here. And you do not understand how WP works. I and others have kept asking you to deal with actual content to which you object, instead of running around making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil. And again, ''the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong.'' I am getting close to asking for an i-BAN or topic ban; you show no signs of respecting the community and its norms, or allowing the community to judge and act, and instead you are continuing your campaign, full steam ahead. ] (]) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (note what this is responding to ] (]) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC))
			::::I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: ], just in case anyone wants to review it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::I was not continuing any "campaign". I followed the advice of two users above who said I should ask my question at the forums they suggested. "I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat." I never said you are. And neither am I. "I am a human, and an editor here, just like you." And so am I. Where did I suggest otherwise? You are imagining things. Talk about ascribing motivations to others. "making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil." I am not trying to fight "evil". I am trying to deal with the case where the ]ers of the article, lead by you are unreasonable. ''the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong.'' That's not true and you know it. We talked a number of times, and nearly every time you rejected anything I suggested adding using the same reason you almost always do, it's written by an "activist" organization. Therefore they should have no voice. Anyone who criticizes GMO's can't have a voice. So then, all you can get in the article is things filtered through the people who support GMO's. At some point we need to go to RS and/or NPOV forums to address that. I don't know enough about those forums to do that at this time. Anyway, this discussion is not productive. All you do is lodge more allegations as you always do. More intimidation and I'm really tired of it. I hope neutral moderators can see how difficult it is to try to talk to you. ] (]) 13:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::::It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @] engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating
	:::::::I gave the links to the two actual edits that you have made. Two. And on the other stuff, your words speak for themselves: "in other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Misplaced Pages been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?", and see the difs and what you said in them, in my original post, way, way above. Really, go read them. Canvassing, campaigning, from day 1. This thread is about your behavior. It is not about content. You are not dealing with how bad your behavior has been - you just keep making excuses for it - and '''you keep doing it, even today at the Teahouse'''. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and you alone are responsible for what you do. Just like I am for my behavior. As always, I will be happy to discuss content with you, at the articles and their talk pages. ] (]) 14:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}}
	*'''Comment''' - {{u|David Tornheim}}, I joined this discussion as an uninvolved editor, and have never collaborated with you to my knowledge. I have collaborated with Jytdog, and will admit that we have not interpreted policy the same, but that does not make me partisan against him. The only partisanship I have or have ever demonstrated on WP is to ], particularly to policies that affect BLPs. Your list gives the wrong impression of me as being partisan to a particular cause or editor, and I imagine others on that list may feel the same or similar. Please remove or strike my name from your list. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 12:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::::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 .
	::To <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>]: Sorry. Thank you for the feedback. You are correct, "partisan" was the wrong word, is far too charged and an unfair description of your participation and that of others. The idea of two sides is also equally problematic. I especially regretted my use of the word "partisan" shortly after I posted it and have since contemplated how to fix it to convey what I meant in terms of why resolution of the conflict between Jytdog and me would likely go smoother and be less charged if just <small>]</small> was mediating it without further evidence brought in and without new conflicts between various people who have entered the discussion making it even more complicated than it already is.
			:::::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)
	::For simplicity, I will strike the reference to both partisan and sides. I thank you for your input into the discussion and apologize for using an unfair negative label to describe you and others.] (]) 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*As I expected, {{ping|Warrenmck}} - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them.
	:::Thank you, {{u|David Tornheim}}. I wasn't asking for an apology, and will humbly accept the one you volunteered. It was an extremely nice gesture considering a strike would have been adequate. I hope my typewritten words didn't sound harsh, but if so, I apologize to you. Happy editing! <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*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.
	*'''Comment''' {{u|Jytdog}} I've been meaning to ask you to provide evidence for your categorization of me as "anti-GMO", or correct your initial statements to reflect your mistake, lest this branding follow me around WP masquerading as fact. You are now the first and only person, both online and IRL, to refer to me as anti-GMO. You already apologized for doing this at BP, when you became the only person to ever call me an environmenalist, but no lesson was learned. As Core a couple years ago, "I strongly resent effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here." '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*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.
	::Hi Petrarchan. First let me say that I am sorry that David's canvass of you woke up all these old conflicts. I don't want to extend this already too-long thread, so (you asked me not to post on yours, I think) ] (]) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*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.
	:::You have highlighted cases where I challenge industry slant in GMO articles, your control over GMO articles (with your thousands of edits), and where I show that the idea of "scientific consensus" has been called into question. None of this can be construed as having any idea as to my personal view on GMOs, but rather my view about NPOV on WP. I haven't come to a personal conclusion about GMO's, so I am sure that there is no evidence proving I have. If you want to categorize me as "anti" industry slant, I accept. But no, I am not anti-GMO. I am pro-NPOV. WP readers come here to read about all sides of the story, but instead we are engaging in censorship, as Atsme mentions above re MEDRS. The first time I heard of MEDRS was when I attempted to update the Monsanto article , and was quickly by you. At the noticeboard you suggested, I am told that MEDRS prevents this addition. MEDRS is meant to protect readers from bad medical advice - but in this case the only ones protected are Monsanto stockholders. Your opinion seems tethered not to WP rules, but to how GMO's and biotechs are described to the reader. I have observed that you use drama and bullying to distract from this fact (David's talk page is a good example). I hate that people have to deal with this, but I don't hate you, as you claim on your talk page. :) '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*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.
	::::The diffs on my page are plenty clear as to where you come from. MEDRS is about health, not just medicine, btw. And that Seneff article you wanted to add, that I reverted, that was . As long as you keep wanting to push that kind of content into WP you are going to be frustrated. I am sorry about that. ] (]) 05:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*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 deny having an anti-GMO stance and ask again for you to strike that claim.''' From your edits previous to the above, I see you are ambivalent about how to avoid responsibility for your ad hominem label. First you decide it is about "scientific consensus" and compare me to <s>Nazi's</s><u>WP:REICHSTAG(?)</u> . Then you decide that I had baited you and you are not taking the bait wisely removing the Hitler reference. But you can't help but compare me to <s>Nazi's</s><u>WP:REICHSTAG(?)</u>, so it comes back in . Then you decide that the reason you can't be held responsible for name calling is that I am here to "right wrongs" and predict the future. . An hour later, that all has to go, and you conclude these are not the real problems, that the real problem is that I'm helping Atsme with "conspiracy theories" and "Fringe" theories. . '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 09:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) (amended by Petrarchan47 in , but changes were made without redaction marks; I showed redaction. ] (]) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC))
			::::::*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)
	::::::Errm - nowhere were you called a "nazi" and I strongly suggest you retract that accusation. I take it you are not familiar with ]? It has nothing to do with nazis. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 09:19, 15 March 2015 (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)
	::::::::WP:REICHSTAG has just as little to do with Nazis as it has to do with Misplaced Pages. It is a joke essay and has no reference to this discussion. However, the ''Reichstag building'' is associated with Hitler's rise to power. I'm not sure how you know what Jytdog meant by his comment, nor why you seem to speak for him and, along with his other buddies, fight his fights. Your participation here and at J-dgos' talk page does little to help your friend fight the accusations of WP:GANG behaviour and bullying. Indeed, it exemplifies them. I will correct references to Nazis and assume that I misunderstood his motivations. I doubt that I will receive the same treatment for my simple request. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 20:24, 15 March 2015 (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)
	:::::::::::writing screeds on jimbo's page has been linked to that essay . i referenced it myself to David's continuation of . ] (]) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*:::A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of ], ], and ]. ] 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::the level of cheap-shotting (citing comments I over-wrote as my thoughts/feelings evolved) and sheer ignorance, all twisted up into a self-destructive angry ball is typical and makes me sad every time I see it. it is just sad. ] (]) 18:23, 15 March 2015 (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:
	{{od}} '''would an admin please close this thread?''' it is just devolving. Thanks.] (]) 18:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*:{{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.}}
	{{archive bottom}}
			::::::*: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 ==
	== User:Tumadoireacht and Circumcision ==
	{{archive top|result=The '''support'''s have it by a wide margin and supported by diffs that indicate personal attacks, sniping, battleground behavior, and general uncollegiality: ] is indefinitely banned from editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages. For appeals, please see ]. ] (]) 01:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	{{u|Tumadoireacht}} was ] last year for tendentious, disruptive and combative behaviour on the ] article. Since then, things have not improved. The latest example is this obvious attempted baiting of an admin ({{u|Zad68}}) for warning another editor about the ]s. In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if {{u|Tumadoireacht}} were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
	::As Alexbrn is one of the small but co-ordinated group of editors maintaining the main Circumcision and other related articles in an unbalanced pro-circumcision state, as I have pointed out in recent edits, it may not be public spiritedness that leads to this call for a ban.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Alexbrn, could you offer some evidence of the problems that are persisting? I'm sure {{u|Zad68}} is quite capable of handling themselves but beyond that can you substantiate current misbehavior?]<sub>]</sub> 11:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Is this the same JodyB who states "Marginal ideas and thoughts have a place but should be plainly shown to be marginal. If sourced, the reader can investigate for himself and determine whether the thoughts are correct" on his home page - even if not that JodyB - WP policy is positively disposed towards including the views of "activist" groups that is, in this case, those who question, from a scientific or human rights or other perspective the cutting off of the tips of male child genitals.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Yes, I linked to which by itself is sufficient I'd have thought. But for more just review the previous few Talk pages edits such as this (reference to a "small but well coordinated group of editors and admins") or this where the use of anti-Circumcision groups' web sites and primary sources is being advocated, despite Tumadoireacht knowing that ] applies. Or just look at the problematic response above here ... ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by ] such as the following: ], ], ], and made poorly sourced POV additions such as:
	* '''Support topic ban'''. Tumadoireacht has been engaging in personal attacks and general battleground behavior on the topic of Circumcision for a long time now, as a short persusal of ] and its archives will demonstrate, but here are a few examples from the past few months:
	*:
	*:
	*:
	*:
	*: .
	*: Tumadoireacht seems to have given up on proposing actual changes to the article entirely in favor of vague complaints and talk page sniping. It is time to see if he can be more productive on some other topic. - ] (]) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			*
	::Proposing worded changes to the article is the last of a list of eight ways the Talk Page Guidelines mention under the title "How to use article talk pages"
	::In his eagerness and haste Mr Ollie has failed to notice that at least one of my contributions which he chose to quote from most selectively IS PROPOSING A SPECIFIC WORDED CONTENT CHANGE. Is it" time for Mr Ollie to see if Mr Ollie can be more observant and productive on some other topic ?
	::My proposals for article content change are evident and numerous not "vague" There are about an equal number of cogent pertinent aspects of Circumcision which about a half dozen editors refuse to permit mention of. These same editors on patrol misrepresent WP policy on Primary Sources and on non medical aspects of the subject to any editor attempting to address this obvious imbalance. The WP policy for instance on both scientific and human rights activist groups ( in this case those who are against this from of genital cutting ) is a good example- it is quite contrary to the picture painted by Alexbrn et cetera. It is not "problematic" as Alexbrn chooses to label it, to point out these aspects of the article, in an attempt to improve it. --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			*
	*'''Support topic ban''' I have been half-heartedly monitoring ] and its talk for years and Tumadoireacht is not helping. As MrOllie shows, current activity is centered on sniping. ] (]) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			*
	*'''Support topic ban''' Users editing is ]. They have not made constructive suggestions with good references. ] (] · ] · ]) 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			Not only Scherbatsky12 was aware about, and even deleted the GS/AA notice , they still made several articles in its violation regardless and made GS/AA breaching additions that also include POV poorly sourced edits. ] (]) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose topic ban''' The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is Circumcision articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning me would help. Yes it would help- it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with me for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that I have raised some genuine issues here, and did in fact, originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page. In the interests of attempting to find consensus I have largely stopped editing the article - all gets reverted by the patrol. On the question of proposing worded content - the pattern of the concerted pro circumcision group is as follows - "we/i have reverted or refuse to allow your edit because your source is too old ( older sources already used for pro C content) your source is a primary source( primary sources already used for pro C content) your source is non medical" ( non medical sources already used for pro C content) - then "your content is 'against XYZ policy" (which often has no relevance but serves the purpose of putting off the would be editor) and then when such inhibitings fail - sarcasm such as this to a new editor
	:"Either get the journal to change there statement or publish you own review in a high quality journal and we will cite you."
	:'''Send to ArbCom''' - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by allegations of conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest and the heavily content-opposed editors from the subject area gather at a noticeboard and attempt to establish a false consensus.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose topic ban''' I feel a lot of the editors of the circumcision article are blatenly biased in favour of circumcision. It is helpful to have editors from both sides of the debate. For a cabal of those same pro-circumcision editors to ask for his dismissal is typical. ] (]) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			::Given them a on the matter. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::''Note: Tremello is a ] (SPA) regarding circumcision and related topics; please refer to the user's edit history, and the linked page for Misplaced Pages's definition of an SPA. <small><code>]]</code> 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)</small>''
			:::@] 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)
	:::Do not poison the well zad. Assume good faith. I am here to create a neutral article. ] (]) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::Consider revoking EC status on Scherbatsky when he reaches 501 total edits. ] (]) 00:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: . It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. ] (]) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again.
			::This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't ] enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. ] (]) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And now that I'm back after having power out for a couple of days due to the storm, I see they've ''continued'' editing. I've blocked for 48 hours, hopefully that will be enough. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Danny5784 ==
	*'''Oppose topic ban''' Hello, I was discussing secondary sources for the part of the article on economic benefits with Tumadoireacht. I don't know what happened before but it seems this specific complaint here is that Zad came in to the discussion to tell us to stay on topic . . . kind of ironic because he could have just made an on topic post, such as showing what he might think a secondary source was. And I think instead of trying to get someone topic banned, everyone who has voted here could help[REDACTED] better by going to the talk page in question and discussing the topic. I read the guidelines here <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Topic_ban</ref>. I think if anything, give Tumadoireacht a "final warning". To Tumadoireacht: I don't think there is any kind of "criminal cabal" on[REDACTED] that is pro circumcicion. I think the cabal exists in real life and gets trickled down to wikipedia. Either way, this isn't the battleground to fight a great wrong. What do the sources say? You have many good sources. If any other ediots on[REDACTED] make you angry, I say "kill them with kindness" by that I mean be helpful by giving good sources that they cannot deny. ] (]) 19:12, 10 March 2015 (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)
	{{reflist-talk}}
			<!--{{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)
	*'''Support topic ban from ]-scope content''' as first choice, and from this topic in particular as a second choice. {{u|NuclearWarfare}} blocked Tumadoireacht just three months ago for disruptive editing (see discussion ]), but the editor has returned to the exact same problematic editing behavior as before. He simply cannot or will not accept or understand Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing, personalizes nearly every comment to the point that it seems he's incapable of just holding a conversation about the topic and the sourcing, and regularly uses the article Talk page to air his personal views on the article topic with highly-charged rhetoric. Most of his comments are just paranoid complaining about what he perceives as a "cabal"; when asked repeatedly to actually provide a specific, actionable article content change suggestion, backed by a genuine reliable source, he never delivers. Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit. <code>]]</code> 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Clerical note that this user is not the ] DannyS712. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article ==
	::Zad is an industrious,productive, meticulous and often painstakingly helpful editor and admin. Unfortunately he has a blind spot when it comes to this subject. He can be regarded as the leader of the group of editors who maintain this article in a currently highly both positively and medicine focussed selective stance on the subject of `circumcision. He exhibits a mean spirited obstructive streak when the unbalance of the article is explored, attempting to characterize good faith teasing out of the articles weaknesses with the worst either mistaken or deliberately misdescribed negative interpretation. This habit is uncharacteristic, but still unworthy of such an eminent and valuable editor. Zad's proposal to ban me from all medical related articles is interesting. It dovetails neatly with Alexbrns idea to ban not just from this article but from the twenty or so related Circumcision and genital cutting articles, the two lads thus presenting a sentencing spectrum. The really funny part is that one of our chief bones of contention is whether Circumcision is primarily a cultural rather than a medical act - a conversation which is currently occurring on the talk page but which Alexbrn's shunning proposal seems to be inhibiting his and Zad's participation in. Lets list the points Zad has raised
	1/Previous "conviction"
			{{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)
	2/No change
			:Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	3/Non acceptance of WP sourcing standards
			::Vandalism is vandalism and is ''not'' funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a ''very'' low tolerance for trolls, ''especially'' in contentious topics. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Also worth noting that ]. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. ] (]) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you ''really'' have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see ]. ] (]) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. ] (]) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Couldn't you have just used inspect element? ] (]) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You're taking a ''very'' long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. ] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «''Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back''» and there are no consequences? ] (]) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. ] (]) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their ]. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. ] (]) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. ] (]) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Editor repeatedly reverting edits ==
	4/Personalizes most comments
			{{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}}
			This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.!
	5/Incapable of holding a conversation about the topic or the sourcing
			I tried to communicate on ] but editor just went away!
			For such behavior the editor has been
			This editor last time also pushed me to violate ] ,
	6/regular use of talk page to air personal views
			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.''"
	7/most comments are paranoid complaining about the cabal
			Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand.
	8/never delivers actionable content when asked
			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)
	9/this editor a useless waste of time.
			:Hello, ],
	I suggest any editor can find these charges to be exaggerated or plain untrue by reviewing my many engaged and good faith practical proposals and conversations/debate on the talk page of the article. Further I suggest that Zad himself engages frequently in the numbers 3 and 4 and 5 behaviour which he professes to abhor.
			: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)
	On a more general point it might be a positive influence on the article quality if those editors or groups of editors for whom circumcision has a religious, cultural or ethnic imperative or for whom it is second nature, made a conflict of interest declaration, or if not willing to do this, then at least allowed themselves (and thus the talk page and article) to examine ideas about its downsides.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			::? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Yeh, I went to the ] noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my . What do you want to prove through this? ] (]) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with ] from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I read over ] discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on ]. Thanks again ] (]) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Usually, when an editor returns to their edit war after being blocked, without once contributing to the article talk page discussions, they are blocked.
	*I have no objection to the type of content that Tumadoireacht, by and large, generally attempts to add to the article. However, the way he is going about it is unhelpful&mdash;routinely using non-] compliant sourcing, casting aspersions to other editors, and most importantly, not changing their behavior in response to requests from other editors. This is a serious matter, and I think it merits a block if not a topic ban. I have acted before as an uninvolved administrator, and I reserve my right to continue doing so in the topic area even despite this post. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is ] , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent ], ] and and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --] (]) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''oppose topic ban''' I don't see the behavior issue as per these diffs. They are just opinions. Discussing views is not a basis for topic banning. Zad's comment here "Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit" seems more of a behavior issue (PA) than info (diffs) presented here. If there's more, please enlighten. (UTC)--] (]) 17:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			:I don't know what you're up to, but , I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks ] (]) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support for topic ban.''' I'm only coming into this glancing at the diffs provided at the beginning of this post without looking into the actual article and I am seeing some decent amounts of ] and ] towards other editors. It's one thing to bring up perceived problems about other editors in appropriate venues, but not to do so in that manner while trying to affect content as well. If this user hadn't been blocked already (and very recently) I would have wanted to see very clear diffs showing even stronger disruptive and tendentious behavior than I'm seeing now to suggest the ban, but given the past block, it seems apparent that the editor's behavior isn't improving. ] (]) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (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 ] ==
	::It may be that I mention too often the possibility that there is a group of editors staging a co-ordinated campaign to present a positively selective view of Circumcision within this and related articles. I can stop doing this. --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:38, 13 March 2015 (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 ==
	*'''Support topic ban'''. Tumadoireacht barely focuses on the article content, except to call it biased, and usually negatively focuses on the editors he disagrees with. Almost every time a Misplaced Pages rule is validly put forth by editors that Tumadoireacht considers part of "the cabal," he does not seem to understand the rule and/or disregards it, and instead rants about the editors' supposed biases. ] (]) 03:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*'''Support topic ban.''' Crusaders have to be sent away. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
			*{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}}
	Flyer22's assertions are easily disproved - look at my edits and talk page entries and judge for yourself. There is a habit that some editors engage in -mentioning a WP policy when they encounter content they disagree with and then getting cross or going silent when the actual content of that policy is brought to their attention. The undue weight policy may be the best example. Those who love to use it as an inhibitory tool do not realize or choose to forget that it applies mostly to proportionality and not to utter exclusion of minor views on a subject.
			], 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 ]?
	As for Baseballs Bugs cryptic quip - no crusader here folks - just looking for a balanced article that references all aspects of Circumcision -not just the medical ones and not just the positive ones.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:What you call "negatives", i.e. unsterile conditions or botching it, are issues with ''any'' surgery, they're not peculiar to circumcision. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			I'd be happy to hash out the original content dispute at ] and see if anything needs tweaking at ], but not when there's obvious bad faith tag teaming going on. ] (]) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	@BaseballI think you are misunderstanding the use of the word negative and misunderstanding the difference between medical and societal circumcisions also.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			:It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? ] (]) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support topic ban from ]-scope content''' per Zad. ] (]) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (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'd have thought that you had enough on your hands defending your own behaviour and reputation on this page at present Jytdog but I am not surprised to see you here chiming in.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:I looked at the difs presented and your behavior; the topic ban is well warranted. I hope you can find happier fields to work in within Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ].
	And I,Jytdog, in turn, wish you the same happiness in attempting to successfully carry out your undertakings to modify your aggressive behaviour towards other editors, given elsewhere on this page. The many areas of health related articles, including Circumcision, where you have had problems in the recent past will undoubtedly benefit.--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Even as this thread runs, Tumadoireacht's tendentious contributions continue. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 18:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.
	Do you really know what tendentious means Alex? {{Shortcut|WP:TENDENTIOUS}} - it does not mean another editor on a talk page proposing content that you yourself or your friends simply do not like. Are you aware that accusing others of tendentious editing thus may be naughty? {{Shortcut|WP:AOTE}} ?. On those now very rare occasions when I edit the Circumcision article, I work the 1RR which is the opposite tendency. Please re-examine your own recent behaviour here and elsewhere after revision. "Like sands through the hourglass.. so are the Days of Our Lives."Blah blah et cetera--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	===Ban Zad68 and DocJames===
	The editors who should be banned are Zad68 and DocJames. They evidently have religious bias in favor of male circumcision that causes them to exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision.
	] (]) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)		] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (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)
	*'''Boomerang'''. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			::<small>] - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	*Yes a '''boomerang''' indef topic ban of ] would be reasonable. The came here making claims without evidence stating that I have a "religious bias in favor of male circumcision" and "exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision". However, the article in question states "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure" Hardly a statement in favor of the position. ] (] · ] · ]) 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for the correction on my wording. ] (]) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Doc, I've no doubt this section was bad faith, and a poor attack but do you really think Sugarcube needs a topic ban or are you just responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes. (because there's no tone on the internet I want to be clear I'm not judging either way just want to be clear)] (]) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Sugarcube is attempting to comment on the religion of editors on Misplaced Pages. I have never disclosed a religion. ] (] · ] · ]) 15:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''oppose and boomerang''' terribly POINTy and disruptive. 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			== Harassment and personal attacks ==
	== ] ==
			{{u|Riventree}} called another editor and myself a , said to the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an . ] (]) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	I am not able to get this user to understand that a discussion and subesquent Rfc about sources needs to be resolved with consensus before cite tags repeatedly are removed , , (with personal accusations just about every time) from the article's text. Much stronger claims about the sex life of that biography's subject person have recently been added to the article. I have no objection to that (contrary to repeated personal insults made against me in that discussion, alluding to my own sexuality) as long as those allegations are clearly and reliably sourced, which I do not believe is the case now, at least not yet. ] (]) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. ] (]/]) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Reviewing ] the overall consensus appears to be the claims are adequately sourced, and given a 1654 death year ] does not apply. <small>]</small> 23:12, 11 March 2015 (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)
	::I came to the same conclusion as {{u|NE Ent}}. It's {{u|SergeWoodzing}} himself who began the ANI and POV-worded RfC which he is appealing to in order to justify edit warring over adding citation needed tags where there is evidently a citation. A discussion looks merited, but why not leave the article alone while the discussion is ongoing (like you've requested Roscelese do with your own version)? &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 23:20, 11 March 2015 (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 ====
	*An RFC is absolutely warranted, for that issue and probably a couple of others. But Serge's "RFC" is simply a list of his opinions and a demand that we all acquiesce to them. Any suggestions that is the case are met with accusations of "personal slurs". <small>Nobody, for example, has "alluded" to his sexuality.</small> Serge seems to disagree with what is in the article because he personally disagrees with those who wrote it like Crompton (regardless of their reliability) and agrees with the opinions of others like Stolpe (regardless of their reliability). All of that is perfectly fine (he is entitled to his personal opinion) but of late it has manifested as edit-warring and talk page tactics that have ground all meaningful discussion to a halt (with a POV he has been pushing unsuccessfully since 2012). Last time people simply gave up arguing with Serge and allowed the ] to stand and it stands to this day (without LGBT categories; he simply edit-warred until everyone else gave up). ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator ]) and JPxG's ] action should not stand, but a ] isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here.
	**{{nonadmin}} I agree with everyone else; and for the record, {{u|SergeWoodzing}}, telling you to abide by consensus isn't exactly a personal insult. (I think I see a ]...) '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 00:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			*'''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 ====
	*''Note'': this sounds similar to the Kerouac bisexual controversy. I'm not sure how that was ever resolved, but someone might want to look. ] (]) 01:55, 12 March 2015 (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.
	**Link? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			* '''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)
			* '''Oppose''' This is a massive overreaction. ] ] 07:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Given Cullen's description of the old edits, if Riventree wishes for a third chance to edit, they should demonstrate a much better understanding of the harassment policy than a {{tq|<shamefaced grimace>}}. Asking other constructive editors who actually do things like understand sourcing guidelines and NPOV to spend time putting up with personal attacks and harassment will drive them off. ] (]) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Anonymous8206 ==
	*Okay, so, Roscelese is under ], including "indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day" and "indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes". Most of the diffs are before March 7, but the second one is after and could be classified as personalizing the dispute although it's not a personal attack. Roscelese made two reverts within a day , but they were consecutive edits so I don't know if that counts to the restriction. If there's more, next time it should be filed at ], not on this board. --]] 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::] <small>]</small> 14:22, 12 March 2015 (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)
	*Serge has continued his (deliberate) misinterpretation of other editor's comments, now claiming that ]' comments justify further edit-warring (). Even if that ''were'' what Rhododendrites was trying to suggest, continually tagging the same sourced quote because you don't like the source (though, literally, everyone else says its okay) is plainly disruptive. I've reverted the tendentious addition of those tags, because Roscelese can't (and surely that was the point of quickly adding them back in). I hate to say it, but I think consideration needs to be given to topic-banning Serge from ] and related articles. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			:] policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. ] (]) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: ]. <s>I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate.</s> ] (]/]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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==
	:*I saw the edit war first, which looked to be based on CN tags when clearly a citation was there. So I reverted and pointed out that cn is not an appropriate tag (that there are others). That's not an endorsement of tagging, just an invalidation of one tag. But perhaps it was misleading since after I read up on it it looks like -- as I mentioned in my comments -- Serge is the only one who thinks the statements should be tagged. I think a discussion is reasonable, but that sufficient consensus exists to remove the tags until which time as Serge convinces others they're merited. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 00:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|result={{NAC}} Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::Dear everyone, I only want to be able to see in the text of the source that Queen Christina had affairs with women that were noted in her life time, if that's in the source's text. I don't see it there, can't find it, and feel we should all be able to. It's my experience that we are encouaged to ask for clear sources. If I'm wrong about that, that's what I need to learn: that I'm wrong about that. How can my problems be so extremely controversial and lead to so much animosity? Can't someone just help me find that? Please! I'm asking real nice. --] (]) 15:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			As the title suggests, this includes:
	::::The issue (for about the 10th time) isn't the content dispute, which everyone seems to agree needs to be resolved. It's your behaviour and the way you have sought to "resolve" that dispute. You have form in this area, Serge, and the rest of us are sick of being bullied. There is no way we can even ''begin'' to address the content issues you have raised until you agree to conduct yourself with decorum, to stop the edit-warring and to stop it with the disruptive talk page tactics. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|SuvGh}}
	== Not adhering to rules regarding ] ==
			::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.
	{{archivetop|{{nac}} MOS is a guideline. No editor can be 'made' to follow them. They are just strongly advised. ] (]) 16:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	On ], I know that Ellis.022 isn't setting out to be intentionally unconstructive, but I have been asking him for about 7 months to please pay attention to ] and study which component charts are not allowed to be included in the charts table if a song has charted on the main chart. I have gone though all the warnings on his talk page for doing this on lots of articles and still . The addition of two components (Alternative and Adult Alternative) which are not allowed to be included (as the song charted on the Hot Rock Songs chart and Rock Airplay chart), which I removed just 5 days ago, with an edit summary echoing what I am writing now. He is aware of the rules but keeps on breaking them. I know he means well (it's good that he updates articles with Billboard chart positions every week), but it's getting really frustrating to constantly revert additions of component charts that he keeps on adding which are not allowed in the tables. Has also been warned for doing this on ] for example (I Dance Airplay, Ellis it back, then I it again) as well as other articles, for which I warned him on his user talk. He must start adhering to the rules of ] because it makes the history of these articles unstable. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 17:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	: I've just seen too, which looks suspicious. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	Guidelines/MOS are not policy. No editor is required to follow them. They are not 'rules' they are guides to editing which can be ignored. ] (]) 08:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			*{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}}
	==doxing attempt report==
			::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 ].
	User 70.83.108.59 has attempted to dox me on the trajan vuia page. . His attempt, including a link to a picture which he thinks is me. Probably the same vandal who was using 70.83.124 to post on this page, but was blocked for 6 months for doxing a user on the wright brothers' page on Feb 1. I can't supply a diff for that because Binksternet immediately erased that, unlike the current case which he has let stand on a page he is monitoring. Interesting how he only observes the rules when they don't interfere with his own personal campaign of obstructive edits and abuse.] (]) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Note, I have the comment per TPG and NPA. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Not sure if this qualifies for ], but I think ] should apply. Any thoughts on the matter? <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Whatever is going on here , the truth about User:Ion G Nemes is that all hs editing is disruptive: he persistantly attempts to edit ] to reflect his own higly biased view of the subject, and does not engage on the talk page. Not that there is any point in blocking him as a disruptive SPA who is clealy not here to build an encyclopedia, because I'm sure he'd pop up under another name.] (]) 15:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::And here comes the doxers pal to wikistalk and abuse me! Do I have to make ANOTHER report for this too? Longtone's abuse is RIGHT HERE FOR YOU TO SEE. I really want to know what this kid's problem is. And I'd also like to know why he's so sure you won't do a damned thing about his wikistalking and abusing me RIGHT HERE ON THE ADMIN PAGE. ] (]) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	== ] behavior at ] and related pages ==
			Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm not sure what to do with this case, but I believe it needs attention.
			: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 ==
	User Rhode Island Red is angling hard for the Helmut Diez article to be deleted, and is attempting to make it as worthless as possible in an attempt to get the deletion to stick.
			{{user|2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64}} I saw an IP making an ] on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and ]. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. ] (]) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	I don't know who Helmut Diez is, nor do I know if we should have an article about him, but I do know that as long as Rhode Island Red is in the dispute, any intelligent debate is going to be lost in a flood of bad-faith wikilawyering.
			: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 ==
	Why am I not assuming good faith here?
			{{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:
	#Rhode Island Red deletes material from the article. Compare a {{oldid|Helmut_Diez|619945568|good version}}, albeit roughly translated from German, to the {{oldid|Helmut_Diez|651147615|current incarnation}} being discussed at ]. Yes, I am aware that a bad translation needs to be made better. But I'd like to see some sort of discussion as to whether or not the article or its subject is worth that sort of time investment before tackling what would in the end turn out to be a fruitless endeavor.
	#Rhode Island Red not only {{diff|Helmut_Diez|prev|650018460|PRODs the article}}, but {{diff|Helmut_Diez|next|650018460|seconds his own PROD}}.
	#When Rhode Island Red finally ], he not only deletes material to make the appearance seem worthless, he {{diff|Helmut_Diez|next|650881093|stuffs the ballot box by voting on his own motion there, too}}.
			{{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}}
	Whether or not Rhode Island Red is intentionally acting in bad faith, I cannot say. All I can say is that he is preventing any discussion and attempting to force his will by taking it upon himself to get this article deleted, by any means necessary. ] (]) 00:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Wizmut}}
	:I can't say I'm familiar with it, but for context it looks like there's a recent ] on the subject. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 03:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::It's mindboggling that Jsharpminor would call attention to his violation of ] by filing a petty and baseless grievance like this. Material was deleted from the article, consistent with ] because it was poorly or improperly sourced or failed verification and was written incomprehensibly about a subject with no apparent notability. It was deleted long before the article went to DRN 2 weeks ago and before it was nominated for deletion. JSharp seems to be implying that I removed acceptable conetnt content from the article to gin-up the deletion nomination process but that's demonstrably false.
	::I find it offensive that someone would petition against an editor in this manner, particularly when I was acting in good faith and engaging constructively on the talk page and at DRN, when the issue is nothing more than a content dispute in which the other disputant (Hans) has yet to make a compelling case to support the notability of the bio subject or the inclusion of poorly written, poorly sourced, and irreparably badly written material. I explained at great length how/why the material conflicted with WP policy and that the onus is on the editor who wishes support the inclusion of contentious material in a bio. I nominated the article for deletion, after going through lengthy but fruitless discussions, because doing so would bring much needed additional scrutiny to the article from other editors and finally resolve the issue -- a complete logical part of the WP process. I made the nomination right after Hans abjectly failed to make a compelling case for his edits at DRN. All one has to do is read the admin's conclusion to the dispute 2 days ago.
	:::''"The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration."''
	::Needless to say, this grievance on the part of Jsharpminor is completely unfounded -- obnoxiously so. In other words, nothing to see here (except one editor abandoning ] for no reason and making a bewildering attempt to intimidate another productive editor who's following proper procedure). ] (]) 07:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thank you Jsharpminor, I see that you have described your impressions very precisely. A kind of behavior, which I would also call detrimental for our collaborative project. One of his ways is to invent one reason after another to make us believe that the article's subject is not notable. First it was the language of the sources, then their notability, even in which library you can find the sources became a core argument (he seems to believe that only the library of congress has got adequate literature in its magazines) and so on. If he really believes what he is telling us all the time, he is probably too illiterate to understand, what we are talking about. I never thought of lawyering, becausse I don't know the exact meaning. So, I cannot decide, if you are right or wrong. Destroying an article is no good thing, destroying it during a discussion of this kind is one of the reasons why people of that kind keep good authors far away from participation. --] (]) 14:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Hans, you know full well that I did not "destroy the article" during discussion. The page was edited prior to your bringing up your dispute with DRN -- the chronology of events and the diff edits I posted above make that abundantly obvious. Nor did I "invent" anything. You're completely ignoring the fact that the outcome of the DRN went against you and echoed the concerns that I had raised. I'm following procedure to the letter. If you think the subject is notable, which the evidence strongly indicates is not the case, then you must make an attempt to prove it, and so far you have failed to do so. But this isn't the place to argue about notability. The article has been nominated for deletion so you had best make your case at the deletion discussion page rather than attempting to pile on in this non-incident witch hunt. ] (]) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Rhode Island Red, now I'm absolutely surprised: You see yourself as a victim of a witch hunt? I really do not know why I have the same impression, but exactly the other way round: You are the witch hunter, and you try to intimidate me, whenever you can. You make use of your advanced knowledge of the incredibly complicated processes here, and whatever I bring forth you don't accept it - with a variety of "reasons". And you seem to believe that anything is allowed here. Simply compare the article and my ], or have a look at the step-by-step destruction with the help of the article's history, and everybody, who is capable to read can see what you are doing here. --] (]) 16:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Once again Hans you're ignoring the writing on the wall. The moderator at the DRN made it clear that the material you were proposing was problematic for a a variety of reasons, seconding what I had told you. When you ignore the outcome of the process you initiated, try to make yourself look like a victim, and blame me for the result, you do a disservice to yourself and all other editors involved. Again, I urge you to focus on trying to demonstrate notability of the bio subject lest the article disappear forever. Concentrate on content instead of personal attacks. ] (]) 19:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Given that Jsharpminor violated ] and made a completely unfounded ANI report and personal attack (i.e. "as long as Rhode Island Red is in the dispute, any intelligent debate is going to be lost in a flood of bad-faith wikilawyering", an apology is in order. I'll be waiting. ] (]) 19:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	Okay, where do I begin here?
	#Assuming good faith ].
	#When an article is up for AfD, notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed]]. Blanking the page first, and then submitting it for AfD second, is just a way to lawyer around the rules.
	#BLP only justifies removal of '''controversial''' content, not just content that you happen to think doesn't pass ].
	#Edit warring to delete large blocks of information from a page is not constructive; it is vandalism.
	#Some of the sources are problematic, this is true. Some are not ], others don't make significant mention of Mr Diez. However, deleting the references for the article along with everything else, is problematic because it doesn't allow anyone to see what's going on.
	#You are not "following procedure." You may be following the letter of the law in some instances, but you are clearly violating it in others, and certainly violating the consensus spirit of it.
	#The moderator at DRN gave up and said that the article needs to be taken to AfD. He said that there are notability concerns here, and this is a point ''about which you and I are in agreement''. The only point on which I disagree with you is that you are trying to take it upon yourself to turn a C-class article into a stub for the express purpose of proving that it is bad. This is circular and unethical.
	You are free to wait as long as you like for your apology. I will accept one only if it is accompanied by your ceasing of the specific behaviors mentioned here.
	It would be much more productive if you would actually allow the community to view the actual article in question and decide whether to keep or delete it; not the bastardized stub that is left after you get done decimating it. ] (]) 01:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|MIHAIL}}
	:*''"Assuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary"''.
	:::Except there is no legitimate evidence to the contrary. You just gave yourself carte blanche to dismiss AGF at will.
	:* ''"When an article is up for AfD, the article must not be blanked, and notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Blanking the page first, and then submitting it for AfD second, is just a way to lawyer around the rules."''
	:::The article was not blanked after it was nominated for deletion. Questionably sourced, trivial and illegible text was removed weeks prior to it going before DRN, where it was then reviewed in detail, and then subsequently nominated for deletion. You’re ignoring the actual chronology of events to suit your own manufactured narrative and egregious violation of AGF.
	:*''"BLP only justifies removal of controversial content, not just content that you happen to think doesn't pass WP:N."''
	:::Your assertion is demonstrably false (and I never cited WP:N as a reason). The relevant WP policies refer to “disputed” not “controversial” content, and there is a world of difference between the two. You would have known this had you bothered to read the diff edits I posted above, talk page, or DRN where I reiterated the policies that justified the content deletion. I’ll make it easier for you and post them again, lest you keep repeating the same off-base accusation:
	::::]: “''To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.''”
	::::]: “''Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy''.”
	::::]: “''The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content''.”
	:::: ] “M''any Misplaced Pages articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are ] enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality ]''.”
	::::]: “''Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page''.”
	::Is that clear enough for you now?
	:* ''"Edit warring to delete large blocks of information from a page is not constructive; it is vandalism."''
	:::Were you just sharing a bit of well known WP trivia or was that a backhanded accusation? I didn’t edit war and I certainly didn’t vandalize the article. You’re the first to make such a charge, and it was scrutinized closely by a moderator just last week during DRN. Is your logic that making 20 false accusations might create the perception of one legitimate one? That's some questionable calculus.
	:* ''"Some of the sources are problematic, this is true. Some are not WP:RS, others don't make significant mention of Mr Diez. However, deleting the references for the article along with everything else, is problematic because it doesn't allow anyone to see what's going on."''
	:::Virtually all of the sources were problematic. Of the 27 hyperlinked references provided by Hans previously all 27 failed a verification check, and when challenged during DRN to provide even a single sentence of content that was reliably sourced, comprehensible, and noteworthy about the bio subject, he was unable to do so. This too should have been painfully obvious to you had you read the DRN that I pointed out. As for not being able to see what’s going on, how hard is it to go back and look at a previous version in the edit history? Hans already provided the link. It’s not like it’s hiding. Mercy, what a burden! About 1/100th the effort it’s taken me to respond to this ANI.
	:* ''"You are not "following procedure." You may be following the letter of the law in some instances, but you are clearly violating it in others, and certainly violating the consensus spirit of it."''
	:::I am in fact following procedure – i.e., the letter of the law -- as well as the spirit. I’m not sure what sort of personal standard you hold editors to or how you assess spiritual violations, but the standards I adhere to assiduously are WPs policies and guidelines, and I have done so in this case. There has been no consensus to violate. The closest thing to a consensus was reached at DRN and it echoed my sentiments to the letter. I have clearly NOT violated the consensus spirit of anything.
	:* ''"The moderator at DRN gave up and said that the article needs to be taken to AfD. He said that there are notability concerns here, and this is a point about which you and I are in agreement. The only point on which I disagree with you is that you are trying to take it upon yourself to turn a C-class article into a stub for the express purpose of proving that it is bad. This is circular and unethical."''
	:::He gave up because despite pleading for days on end, Hans couldn’t provide a single sentence of decipherable text that was noteworthy and supportable by reliable references. You shouldn't speculate about what you think my motives are. I did not delete material to prove that the article was “bad”; I deleted material because the material was "bad". In conclusion, I call BS on every accusation you made. Your charges are so off base that it begs the question as to why you would even bother to file such a superficial and petty ANI. It's still not too late to atone by apologizing. ] (]) 05:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	:Okay, let's have another go at this.
	:I'm starting the arduous process of sifting through the article, and I'm slowly being able to sift through the data. However, you would do well to keep the following in mind:
	#Sources for English WP do not need to be in English.
	#BLP does not require deletion of ''all'' unsourced material &ndash; only what's contentious and possibly untrue. No one is disputing that anything in the Helmut Diez article is factually incorrect; in fact, it likely is all correct, though possibly colored with a bit of marketing puffery.
	#It looks bad to second your own PROD nomination.
	#It looks bad to vote "yes" on your own AfD.
	#It is unconstructive and possibly even vandalism to continually wipe a page that another editor is actively working on.
	:In the end, you're probably right when you contend that Helmut Diez is an unsuitable candidate for a Misplaced Pages article. However, the manner in which you're trying to run around and force the issue is likely to generate responses from uninvolved editors. It throws up big red warning flags, and invites editors to ask you to stop. I suppose if you thrive on conflict, you're welcome to keep going the way you are, but you should expect to meet lots of resistance at every step when you try to steamroll process. The wheels of Misplaced Pages justice turn slowly, and trying to circumvent process to make them go faster will only cause unnecessary pain and distraction.
	:Let the AfD go forward with the article fundamentally unchanged from how it is. If you want to make minor corrections, I won't tell you not to. The article will probably be nuked. In the mean time, please refrain from blanking it further. ] (]) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Yeah, everyone who abandons the assumption of good faith seems to have an excuse that in their mind that justifies it. You've managed to misrepresent pretty much every relevant detail in this case, and it serves no purpose since the situation is now resolving itself through proper channels -- as a direct result of my input on the DRN and my nominating the article for deletion. For now, I'll simply refer you back to my original rebuttal which negates the bulk of your accusations. No point wasting more time responding while you clutch your pearls about non-existent conduct issues, acknowledging that the article is likely to get nuked. I wish I could say it's been fun. I'll still accept that apology when you're ready. ] (]) 03:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|Magnolia677}}
	Interesting. Wasn't it you, who started dreaming of a witch hunt? After all this, nobody except you can Assume good faith any more on your side, and I could imagine that Jsharpminor is not completely wrong. --] (]) 10:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			Dates:
	And again, Rhode Island Red, one of your contortions: It was me who put the case on DRN, and the result - only a little bit different from what you expected - can be seen here: ]. In short: "Although clarifications were made based upon WP guidelines, there was no clear resolution ..." --] (]) 10:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Hans, instead of doubling down on this BS ANI, you should be concentrating on the editorial issues at hand -- i.e., defending your claim that the bio subject is notable by providing the requisite details that have repeatedly been requested of you on the talk page and during the DRN, which you have so far failed to provide. I don't dream of a witch hunt as you suggested; I dream of no longer having to waste WP resources on a substandard article about a non-notale subject that should have been deleted long ago. Additionally, you now seem to be alleging that I "contorted" something about the DRN. Would you care to elaborate on that, or are you content to just sling mud from the sidelines? If you're going to accuse someone of doing something improper, have the decency to be specific. Once again, I'll post the conclusion of the DRN so there's no ambiguity, as you now seem to be trying to misrepresent what was said:
	::"The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, '''many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject'''. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. '''My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page'''. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think '''notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration'''." ] (]) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Support -- <b>Rewrite of Article with RELIABLE SOURCES that are VERIFIABLE</b>
	:I saw this claim early on by the user who brought in the allegations:
	::Rhode Island Red deletes material from the article. Compare a {{oldid|Helmut_Diez|619945568|good version}}, albeit roughly translated from German, to the {{oldid|Helmut_Diez|651147615|current incarnation}} being discussed at ]
	:It appears each is at an extreme. The "good version" needs to be better sourced as was pointed out by Rhode Island Red . My suggestion is that the user who brought the ANI close the discussion with apology for inadequate sourcing, fix the sourcing problems, show us a "good version" that is properly sourced, and let us see where we are then.] (]) 05:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			20 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie changes the figure without a source, which is reverted by me. For this article, unsourced changes happen regularly, so I did not take the effort to give Thelittlefaire much explanation.
	== IP-user - disruptive editing on Current Events ==
			21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.
	User 70.190.111.213 has multiple complaints on ] going back a few months. Recently, they have been adding excessively-detailed items about stories of questionable notability to the Current Events page, while removing valid & concise items posted by other users. {{History|Portal:Current events/2015 March 12|March 12}} and {{History|Portal:Current events/2015 March 14|March 14}} are good examples. User frequently opts to avoid discussion, and what discussion does happen is peppered with derogatory statements about both the person initiating the discussion and the actual subjects being discussed (see their ]). ] (]) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			22 Dec 2024 : I revert, mentioning the selection criteria for this article's sources. Thelittlefaerie reverts, and also reverts an unrelated change. I leave it, and instead start a topic on the ].
	ADD: Demonstrated bias on user's part by writing-off the logic which they used for deleting an item ({{Diff|Portal:Current Events/2015 March 14|651335278|651328907|Taiwan protests}}) when the same is applied toward their own contributions ({{Diff|Portal:Current Events/2015 March 12|651395052|651392919|Social Security scam}}). ] (]) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::you add this into the middle of your statement way after the fact - its a miracle that i even noticed it - the logic you used is literally beyond contempt - in fact it reeks of contempt - your statemtent is non sensensical - how could i even try to refute it - you might as just said that red and green are the same colors--] (]) 23:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:I have addressed each and every addtion or deletion that you question - NOT ONE SINGLE item have I not done so - seems pointless you now to come to the AN/I to cry that you did not get your way - have I been a prolific editor of the Current Events page?, of course, is that supposed to be a bad thing?--] (]) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::the thing I dont understand about your move to the AN/I is that other editors seem just fine with my work over at the Current Events page - the problem I run into is sockpuppets and vandals that endlessly challange the page with bios, irrelevant material, or just general disruption - the general disruption is to be expected from kooky people so this does not bother me much - the other two does bother me - you in the last few days are the latter - you have attempted to remove material that clearly meets the notability requirements for the page and yet you also attempt add trivia like a few people pounding the pavement with signs to whatever crackpot ideas these tiny fractions of the population currently expose - but i have already covered all that on the talk pages and history as YOU WELL KNOW--] (]) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::as for your most worthless statement that i quote "has multiple complaints on ] going back a few months" you well know that is rubbish - i have addressed each and every one of those sockpuppets and vandals on my page - any ADMIN that cares to do so can review them - almost everyone of the items came from a vandal or sockpuppet who could not get whichever of the types of items above i have already described (namely again bios, irrelevant material, or just general disruption)--] (]) 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::also i should address your statement about two recent additions to the current events page or as you say they are "Recently, they have been adding excessively-detailed items" - one of my biggest pevs is that sometimes to prove the notablity of a thing the story MUST be somewhat lenghty - i can promise you i have no interest to tire myself writing up such items - they take a long time - BUT if they are part of history that needs to be known later then they (1) do need to get written up and (2) do need to be lengthy - I will give you the two most common types of events that do often need to be lengthy - they are medical/science and legal - often i see others try to say write up an opinion of the US Supreme Court and they do so in just one sentence - such lazy activity is abosultely useless - the legal matter may have had special condiitons under which the law is only true and have been reviewed for then - other situations may not apply - hell sometimes the ruling is the most narrow and yet editors write it up as if it is a blanket - thus these editors do our readers no good service because they have actually done more harm then good - medicine write ups have the same problem - in regards to you statement that "RECENT" additions by me were too long - guess what? - they were both legal issues that would literally be completely false if someone tried to abbreviate them in a write up--] (]) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::The personal attacks at ANI and referring to somewhere as a ''Shithole location'' on your talkpage isnt really a good idea as per ]. Also can you provide some evidence of ] with regards to ], ], ] and ] as you have claimed at your talk page. ] (])(]) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Removed word that you found offensive since has really nothing to do with discussion--] (]) 22:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::It wasnt that I found it offensive it just didnt appear very civil. Can you address the sock issue I've mentioned above? ] (])(]) 22:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	'''Statement from FourViolas''' I recently made 70.190.111.213 aware of ] on their talk page, where, in conjunction with ], my history with them may be found. I have not engaged in content disputes with this user beyond , so I am involved only insofar as I have tried to offer guidance and been accused of sockpuppetry. The user to have been editing for five years, but their contrib history only goes back to the beginning of the year; I believe it would be relevant to this discussion to know which accounts or IPs this user was editing under for the previous 4.75 years, and if they encountered criticism then. ] (]) 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)
	To clarify my concerns: this user has
	*'''Cast unsupported aspersions''' of sockpuppetry ( ) and ignored suggestions ( ) to open a legitimate ];
	*Engaged in '''edit warring''' since their last block ( , all part of the same war);
			3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase ''"This is your final straw."''
	*Repeatedly '''referred to other users as "vandals"''' and their edits "vandalism" in manners proscribed by ] ( ) since they acknowledged that it is "a violation of wiki rules to call someone a vandal" except where there is evidence of "wilfull destruction of wiki" ();
	*'''Bitten''' and '''driven away''' a good-faith and potentially beneficial newbie by personally attacking them and stonewalling (], ]); and
	*'''Failed to engage in consensus building''' (), often with uncivil edit summaries, e.g. referring to other user's contributions as "crap" or "worthless biased agenda crap",
	all in the past three months of what they say has been a 5-year career. Their talk page shows that they have been duly and repeatedly warned about their behavior, and have chosen not to change it. Is this enough evidence yet? ] (]) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: ''"why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism"''. In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates.
	This guy now seems to think nationwide protests in Canada aren't notable for some stupid reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_March_14&action=history ] (]) 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:this from an editor with just five total edits - another sock of a banned user using a varialble IP address maybe?--] (]) 07:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: Can you address ]'s concern about casting unsupported aspersions? This criticism isn't about your contributions to Current Events but how you interact with other editors. Regardless of the quality of your contributions, collaboration is the nature of editing on Misplaced Pages. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::The issues with regards to edit summaries and incorrect interpretation of policy appears to still be in effect . ] (])(]) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I'm sorry have you EVER AND I MEAN EVER EDITED THE ARTICLE YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES??? no then how can you come over there and suddenly override my experience - what trivial background do you have there to make such a determination?????????????????????--] (]) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I show you as having just begin in wiki in May 2014 and yet you override me there with absolutely no experience as to what if anything is notable in that article--] (]) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::in fact that move just looked like a violation of ]--] (]) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Your edit summaries are still ], you have claimed someone is not noteable however their article (which requires them to be noteable) does exist, if they are not noteable with regards to a specific incident or event then that may be true but purely claiming they are not ] when they must have passed the notability criteria for inclusion doesnt appear to be an accurate evaluation of their noteability. ] states that viewing a users contribution for places such as ] is a valid use of a contribution history, your edit summaries are part of the discussion here so this appears relevent. ] (])(]) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::dude do you know how many times i have had to defend that article from trivial additions of that type?? I will go through it again since you have NEVER ACTUALLY EDITED That article before - the article could have any number of such trivia obit additions the problem is then the article about the only superpower on the earth would EXPONETIALLY MUSHROOM in length to some monolithic 1 to 10 mega bytes per year - and yes i have done the math to make that statement - if you had ever followed the article before you would know those numbers are correct - your addtion is one of trivia - the article would end up as some non sensical endless hodgepoge of data not fit for an encyclopedia--] (]) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::just because someone has an article in wiki it is not notable enough for that article - and many other editor have already reviewed that article and AGREE with that - but you through STALKING did not ever review that - you just went over there with no experience and overrode me--] (]) 23:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::further, do you have any idea how wrong what you just did? - I will put it to you in very simple terms - do you have any idea how much work each and every day I have to do to keep an article about the only superpower looking as good as it currently does? and then someone like you comes along and alters it with no experience to back you up BUT EVEN WORSE you then force me to waste my little time on DEFENDING IT - I WILL ASK YOU FLAT OUT are you planning on taking over the good-sheperding duties for that article to keep it looking good - my guess you will need to put in at least 40 hour of your life per week - no? - what you have done is waste my time - and it is heinous--] (]) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} Unfortunately you still don't appear to be willing to address the key points. This thread is getting far too close to being ] so I've pulled them out and added them below.
	#Edit summaries being uncivil
	#Unsupported accusations of socking
	#Personal attacks in this ANI
	#What appears to be ] issues with regards to the article you have accused me of making ''heinous'' edits with regards to my revert.
			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 ].
	Anyone else is welcome to add anything I've missed ] (])(]) 08:33, 16 March 2015 (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.
	:Evidence may be found in my bolded statement above. Per ], having edited a page in the past confers no special rights or immunities. ] (]) 12:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::The allegations against ] (]) come with supporting evidence that is clear and convincing. The defense by the accused comes with unsubstantiated allegations and confirms problematic behavior of ] (]). What relief is being sought? ] (]) 06:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Admin's discretion, especially because most complainants, including me, seem to be fairly new. The user contributes content positively, but their failure to demonstrate collaborative competence constitutes disruption and must be addressed.. Options:
	:::#1RR on ] and ], with a stern civility warning
	:::#Temp block for incivility, aspersions, and edit warring (unlikely to improve their opinion of WP and not long-term helpful before)
	:::#indef block until willingness to relinquish ownership and improve civility is demonstrated in unblock request.
	:::I hope this discussion can have significant long-term benefits. Current events seems to attract newbies, and it's not okay to have an environment of biting there. ] (]) 11:08, 17 March 2015 (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."''
	== Disruptive user removing DS notice from article talk page ==
	{{archivetop|Bold close. SteveStrummer has been directed to make a clarification request with ArbCom and has self-imposed a 1 week topic ban. It is recommended that SteveStrummer follow through with their request for clarification. ] (]) 23:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	A user known by the handle {{user|SteveStrummer}} is a DS notice from ]. The article falls under the scope of the ] discretionary sanctions. Please entreat this user to stop being disruptive. Much obliged, ] — ] 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:The tag is unjustifiable based on the discussions and page history. I have never been faulted for my behavior on Misplaced Pages, and I'm standing my ground on this one. The tag is just a transparent effort at intimidating future editors who may come across the discussion. ] (]) 19:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::It has nothing to do with "intimidating" anyone. It is merely an alert that DS apply to the article. They do, whether the tag is placed there or not. ] — ] 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::And have I? My remarks have all been civil and modest, while yours routinely display an unseemly aggression. There was nothing disruptive to justify this tag, except your own repeated attempts at ownership of Russian-related articles. ] (]) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I have no involvement in "Russian-related articles", so I simply don't know what you are referring to. Nothing "disruptive" is needed to justify a tag. It is merely a notice of existing DS. In fact, it is much more transparent to place the tag on the page, so that people are aware of what they are getting into. Those DS apply to me as much anyone. ] — ] 19:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::*"Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict" according to Arbcom . By the same token, any editor can place such tag on the ''talk'' pages of appropriate articles. Tagging articles themselves is a different matter. ] (]) 19:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::"By the same token"? No. The rules you point to say explicitly "the editor's talk page": there is no broader permission to tag article talkpages. ] (]) 19:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Well, here is my reading of this (by the spirit, not by the letter): there is nothing wrong with alerting other users about DS if this is done appropriately, for example by using an official template in an article that clearly belongs to the area of conflict... ] (]) 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::My reading of it hews to the actual terms: this tag is only used when "discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict". There are no such sanctions in place and never were. ] (]) 19:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::This article definitely falls in the scope of ARBCOMEE and hence discretionary sanctions.] (]) 19:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::]; specifically these. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 19:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::ARBCOMEE notes that relevant articles may have discretionary sanctions imposed rapidly, but it does not say that every page may be tagged as such. The tag implies an existing conflict that has already induced sanctions. It is not meant to ward off any and all new contributors. Few EE articles have this tag, including several that were page-protected at one time or another. ] (]) 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You don't understand the DS system. All articles within the scope of ] are already covered by the sanctions, tagged or not. Tagging has no such implications. It is simply a notice. ] — ] 20:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Another personal attack. That's wrong, and so is your claim. Tagging ''does'' have clear implications to the readership: that's their whole point. ] (]) 20:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::What personal attack? There is nothing wrong about it. Do you want me to summon arbitration clerks to verify this? I know that it is the case, and it is very easy to prove. Tagging cannot have any implications for the readership, as the readership does not look at talk pages. ] — ] 20:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent|13}}{{ec}}Just leave the tag there. It's not that important whether it's there or not, an the article is clearly in scope. <small>]</small> 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::If that's the case, I'll just say: you don't understand what it means to have a "readership". The page in question had over ten thousand page views in the last thirty days, while the talkpage earned a mere eighty-seven. Assuming most of those were us, are you going to tell me that those scant few explorers – potential contributors all – would ''not'' be dissuaded by having this tag in their face? We never had any ArbCom adjudication here, and there is no justification for labelling it as a disputed page. ] (]) 21:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::"We never had any ArbCom adjudication here" is incorrect. ] is in ] as usually defined. The topic area of ] is subject to ]. Read ]. ] (]) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::That is not the issue; the issue is the tag. If all EE pages were to have that tag displayed without existing disputes, they would all have it right now. They do not, and neither should this. ] (]) 21:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::If you really think that the use of the tag on article talk pages is improper, I suggest that, rather than edit-warring over the tag, which is what brought you here, you request a ruling at ]. I think that everyone here except you (SteveStrummer) thinks that ArbCom will clarify that the tagging is entirely proper, but if you really think that the tagging is improper, that is how you can ask ArbCom to clarify whether any editor may apply the tag to any article in an area that is subject to discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::There's obviously no question of whether or not I this the use of the tag is improper, and if a neutral administrator says that I was wrong, I will indeed follow that link. Thanks for your input. ] (]) 21:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent|18}}
	I don't believe that there is a problem tagging the article talk page. Whether or not a tag has been placed, the fact remains that the article is covered under the scope of DS regarding EE. Therefore the tag is merely informative. I think awareness of a DS is a more preferable outcome than ignorance of it. &mdash;] 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	*{{U|SteveStrummer}}, the tag isn't there for readers; it's there for editors. Sure, not every page on an Eastern European topics tagged in that way, and if a page isn't tagged, that's probably because editors didn't see a need to tag it--presumably because there hasn't been a problem. Apparently good-faith editors signal either a possible problem, or the likelihood thereof, in this case, and it seems to me that therefore its placement is valid. Thank you, ] (]) 02:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::I sense that at least one of you knows that, despite the persistence I showed in this particular case, I am not a member of the Misplaced Pages warrior class, and I appreciate the collegial tone of your replies. Still, both your explanations appear to me to be ''post facto'' deduction, and not supported by the actual wording of the ARBCOMEE policy in question. Accordingly, I reserve the right to raise this question at ARCA. As for the rest of it – the ill-considered page move, and its "review" – I continue to believe strongly that what's happened is very bad for the project, but I can see that I have exhausted my reasonable allotment of objections and I will offer in good faith my own self-imposed one week topic ban, extendable at your discretion. ] (]) 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.
	== Legal Threat from an IP ==
	{{archivetop|status=Vandalism Fixed & IP banned|Nothing else to see. All fixed. ] (]) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	Please see . Hope this is in the correct place. I'm pretty sure it's just a troll, but still. - ] (]) 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:No, I was being dead serious. I have contacted my local PD.] (]) 03:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: Wow, you're a little ray of sunshine... Anyway, already blocked fro 6 months by ]. But it looks like someone may need to take a mop to some of the other Talk pages this IP vandalized... --] (]) 03:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{small|If anyone believes the IP, I have a slightly used bridge to sell to them. ] ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	::::{{working}} Looking at any of the talk pages + contribs. ] (]) 16:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	The term "pussy" when referring to a lack of strength comes from the word "pusillanimous" which means "showing a lack of courage or determination". It has nothing to do with female bits. ] 16:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Looks like etymology convergence. Either way, it signifies "unmanly". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			: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)
	== User refuses to engage in discussion ==
			::It does seem like this could have gone to ]. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from ]. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Hello! '''Thelittlefaerie''' speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. ] (]) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this.
			::::I think if you can apologise and agree to not make ] against other editors again, and refrain from ] (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek ].
			::::Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M.
			:::::Thank you,
			:::::'''Thelittlefaerie''' ] (]) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page ] (]) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::(I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) ] (]) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			* '''Update''': Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Swagsgod ==
	There's an unusual editor "]" on ] and various other pages. He does not engage in talk pages and refuses to provide any reliable sources to back his claims. Here he says that he wont provide any sources because it wont do any good. . I have provided the source for my addition on ] and in the article before it was removed. He seems to not want to discuss the matter. Can an admin intervene and force him to participate or initiate sanctions. ] (]) 03:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|result={{NAC}} {{u|Swagsgod}} blocked and TPA revoked. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	: Links: {{Userlinks|AcidSnow}}. --] (]) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	: {{Nao}} After a quick look, and it looks to me like AcidSnow has engaged you on at least one Talk page... --] (]) 03:55, 15 March 2015 (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)
	::First of all, I have engaged in the discussion every since it started. You, on the other hand, had not for four days. In fact, you didn't return till after I called you out for it. Any admin or user interested in being involved in this issue, I highly advise you to check out this discussion on admin ]s talk page, here: . Or at least by attention to this part:
			:Looking into it. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::"I was the one who first , I was the one who , I was , etc......last article was on the ]; which I too was and the . Even then, I too was once again and the on the ] page. I didn't talk about consensus? Dude the whole point of going to '''the talk page is to get consensus'''; which you have consistently failed to receive. Isn't it ironic that you accuse me of not discussing even though I have been involved since day one? You, on the other hand, haven't in more than four days! But nonetheless, you still had time to ."
			::Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
			::*{{tq| Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God}}
			::*{{tq|Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests}}
			::etc. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by {{ping|Fram}}). Let me know if I have missed anything. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). ] (]) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Gone. —] (]) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as {{tq|Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis}} was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? ] (]) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? ] (]) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source ==
	::Anyways, as I, ], and ] pointed out earlier all your sources are fringe. ] (]) 03:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I have been involved in all of them ]. ] (]) 04:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: {{Nacc}} Yep. A quick scan belies the claim that you do "not engage in talk" discussions, from what I saw. --] (])
	::::What? ] (]) 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Never mind. I thought you were typing "believes" and not "belies". ] (]) 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	All sources are fringe? Can you provide your sources? Which you have not been doing at all. Your refusal has brought me to this board. ] (]) 04:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Yup. Try to pay attention next time. ] (]) 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::] and ] are right. The various claims being made are fringe and are based exclusively on a handful of modern links. The actual historical documents on the ], particularly the medieval ''Futuh al-Habash'' (the main treatise on the kingdom), certainly do not indicate that the Argobba were one of the Sultanate's main populations or that its constituency was largely Afar. ] (]) 15:18, 15 March 2015 (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.
	Historical sources are not gold. Provide your counter claims on the talk page for the last time. ] (]) 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:We all have, but you don't care. Instead you have opted to edit war, make false accusation, break consensus and so on. ] (]) 16:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	ok i hope admins see that you refused on ] even though another user dwpaul said that your suppose to. ] (]) 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	: *Sigh*, once again I never refused to do anything. You just don't want to read any that goes against your fringe beliefs. Ironicaly, this made quite clear on the where after being proven wrong you have now refused to disscuse any further. It's been over a week now too. ] (]) 16:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	Let me quote the other user '"Misplaced Pages articles cannot be used as reliable sources for edits in other Misplaced Pages articles. When introducing information here that requires a reliable source, the source must be cited here. If a source can be found in another, related, article, it can be copied here, but you cannot simply refer to its presence in another article and claim that your edit is reliably sourced"'. Do you understand? ] (]) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	: *Sigh*, if you had bothered to read anything that has been written here you would know that this . But this isn't surprising since consistently. Anyways, as the individual you quoted above states: "When introducing information here that requires a reliable source, the source must be cited here". Ahmad ibn Ibrahim being a Somali is well known and undisputable fact. In fact, it's already cited there. But sadly you don't care even the slightest. More importantly, instead of break policies why don't you try to follow them? I highly recommend that you check out ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 17:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Requesting sources is an attack? Perhaps you have me confused with another user. ] (]) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::No I am talking about you. You have made numerous attacks against me and other users. Though, isn't ironic that you only dispute that one and not the other :)? ] (]) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::False accusations have consequences. ] (]) 23:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Hence why I told you to stop. ] (]) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::It seems to me that there are faults on both sides here:
	:::::*It would have been better if Zekenyan had added FACT tags instead of deleting the information as in this edit: . I think we can assume that Zekenyan knows that citations can be provided for '']'' being Somali; so deleting the information for lack of a citation seems like gaming the rules to provoke a confrontation.
	:::::*But having said that, why one earth did AcidSnow not provide a citation? ] backs up Zekenyan's demand for a citation - and given that some sources dispute that ''Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi'' was of Somali ethnicity, it is an issue that a reasonable person might want a citation for.
	:::::--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 23:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::How are you Toddy? Anyways, it's well known fact that Ahmad ibn Ibrahim was an ethnic Somali. However, the dispute is based off his Arab Genealogy which all Somalis. So it's hard to actually despite that he wasn't Somali. Anyways, the source for him being Somali was provided months ago. See here: . I would also like to inform you that Zekenyan deliberately removed that Nur (Ahmad's nephew) was Somali. See here: . Shockingly, he acknowledged that Nur himself was a Somali: . ] (]) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	Let me clarify the edit mentioned by Toddy. That particular revert has nothing to do with Ahmed being somali but the Adal sultanate being somali. Which is why i brought up a source on ] that explains the adal sultante is afar. And no you cant find a source that says adal sultanate was "somali". Emir Nur is not notable for being an ethnic "Somali" per say. He is actually noted for the Harar walls being erected during his rule. ] (]) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Both books you provided have already been proven fringe by three users. Nur being an ethnic Somali, an Emir of Harar, and the founder of the walls of the city were all already noted prior to your arrival. See here: . More importantly, are you seriously claiming that there's no source for Adal being Somali? Hahaha, please stop with these foolish claims! Numerous sources for the Walshama Dynasty, as well as both Adal and Ifat have already been provided. See here: . Though, as several users have already pointed out . You have even opted to abandoned the talk page for the last eight days! See the revision history: . ] (]) 00:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::All you are doing is refering to other talk pages and showing previous versions of articles. It seems you will not cooperate. ] (]) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::At this point I can't tell if you're either trolling/completely oblivious to what's going on around you or not. ] (]) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			== 142.190.62.131 ==
	I really don't see the point in arguing with "Zekenyan" as he clearly just has an agenda of some sort. Anyway, for any admins reading this, here is your evidence that they were Somali with sources:
			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)
	"''Zekenyan-> there are plenty of sources on the page showing the genealogical traditions that trace them back to Somali figures such as an ancestor shared with the ] clan which was shared by such figures as ] </nowiki>]. Hell, you should know that a ] historian claimed they were descended from a Somali saint (]) </nowiki>]. ] also noted down this fabled origin from the Somali saint from a Harari record with I.M lewis taking note </nowiki>]. And as I said in an edit-> I.M Lewis does refer to them as ''Somalized Arabs'' or ''Arabized Somalis'' & even for example touches upon their fabled connection to Yusuf/ "Aw Barkdhadle (meaning; Blessed Father)</nowiki>] and Ethiopian historians somewhat unfamiliar with a good part of their history at best considered them Arabs such as in the case of Asma Giyorgis </nowiki>].
			: 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 ==
	The more generally accepted and shared by most historical sources genealogy is the Aqeeli one via Isma'il al-Jabarti, the fabled Somali Darod clan ancestor whose only known descendant to have ever affected the Horn in anyway is ] (Darod clan founder) whom everyone associating themselves to "Jeberti/Jabarti" including the ] tie themselves to. To claim this dynasty was anything but Somali after the plethora of sources tying them to such figures is practically dishonest. Anyway, you wanted sources so I gave you some.
			{{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 .
			#
	You will never find a legitimate source claiming they were "Argobba", Braukämper is as Acidsnow said; a fringe figure with wildly incorrect notions about a good number of things. He once claimed the ] were likely Ethio-Semitic only to immediately concede that he had absolutely no evidence for this claim...''"
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			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)
	The only sources that ever even try to claim they were Ethio-Semitic are Braukämper and one other source who also tried to claim the ] was ethio-Semitic (Do I really need to explain how retarded that is?). Again: there is no discussion to be had here. When both of a dynasty's genealogies (as even shared by Harari historians) clearly point to Somali ancestors-> they're Somali.
			* '''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 only icing on the cake that the majority of their soldiers were Somalis (read any source on the matter on the Adal, Walashma or Ifat or pages) but of course all of these legitimate sources mean nothing to Zekenyan who wants the truth to be what he wants it to be (real truth and those clear cut genealogies be damned). I advise any admins to deal with an editor accordingly when he has enough of a bias to him to say that "historial sources aren't gold" (but your fringe sources are, yes?) when the Futuh was written by a man who was in Adal territory (Shihab Ad-Din) and described the origins of the troops in question clearly (it's also been studied by a plethora of scholars). He's not looking for a discussion here... ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::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)
	:Once again Abdi, I thank you for your assistance. Shall we make a block/ban proposal? ] (]) 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			::: Thanks very much, ]. And as well? ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It is well know that ] is promoting his POV in certain articles, engaging in edit wars and stalking other users. I have reported this to the administrators.] (]) 09:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::Thanks {{U|Paul Erik}}, I got that /64 as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Haha, is this coming from the block avoiding Ip? ] (]) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you! ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Abusive user ==
	::Your not providing any direct sources that says adal was somali. I have provided on ] a reliable source that directly gives Afar credit for the Adal sultante. BTW dont spam this forum take it to the talk page. ] (]) 14:54, 16 March 2015 (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)}}
	:::We did. You have a clear case of ]. ] (]) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (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)
	It seems to me like the 3 users are associates of some sort as user awale abdi has started to personally attack me now here calling me a "moron" ] (]) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Insults others but cries when he's insulted. ] (]) 15:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Provide evidence like i did, for your accusations. ] (]) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::You never provided diffs for my accusation, let alone did I ever make any attacks. ] (]) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC).
	::::I meant I have provided diffs for the user Awale Abdi's personal attack. I am asking you to provide diff of the personal attacks that you claim I have done against you. ] (]) 17:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Guys, this is petty. Please take the content dispute to the talk page and work it out there. Also, bear in mind that all actual historical documents on the Adal Sultanate indicate exactly what ] does above; especially the main such treatise, the ''Futuh Al-Habash''. ] (]) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== User:Bryce Carmony and civility ==
			:@]. 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 ==
	Background: {{userlinks|Bryce Carmony}} had been trying to merge most "Criticism of..." articles into the main article, with no concern for why they had been split in some cases such as ]. I and a few others, including ] and ], tried to discuss the mergers in ]. Bryce removed several attempts to communicate, ] ]. I ] to keep an eye on him, because she had blocked him last.
			*{{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)
	At 21:07 UTC yesterday, she blocked him for 24 hours with the rationale "argument is getting a little WP:POINTY". Since then, we've had ] ] ], ], , and ] ] ] ]. Apparently Bryce feels that IAR covers ] of ]. , this user has just been uncivil, and I want a resolution. ]<sup>]]</sup> 04:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Bryce simply will not listen to anything anyone has to say, and any attempts at discussing issues with them will eventually be dismissed as - which is ridiculous, because there is no way on earth that ''anything'' has been spam, and the claims of harassment are almost as unfounded. They seem incapable of understanding that the issue centres around their lack of ], in that they were nominating large pages for merger every 10 minutes or so at one point - a rate that clearly shows they never even attempted to look up the histories of each article, or to determine whether a merger may actually be appropriate. And the actions of ], such as , have been little better, and have only made the situation worse. I'm not sure if any further sanctions are warranted for Bryce ''yet'', but someone needs to talk some sense into them - I tried, but failed. ] ] 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Bryce Carmony is a truly terrible editor who has no place on Misplaced Pages. This is the second time in two months that his behaviour has been discussed here, and since January he has been blocked four times. His edits are often very clumsy, his manner is irrational and extremely aggressive, he wilfully misrepresents (often abusively) any attempts to discuss or challenge his actions, he refuses to follow guidelines and he is quite prepared to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. The worst thing is that he (wilfully?) misunderstands fundamental issues and will not accept that he might be wrong - in many ways the apparent stupidity of people who disagree with him seems to be one of the sources of his anger.
	:His activities on Misplaced Pages have fallen into two phases, both based on irrational notions.
	:#Until his 1 month block last month he spent his time removing "unnecessary words" from articles. In some cases this led to improvement by removing verbiage but in many cases it damaged the articles. He even edited direct quotes. It came to a head with a row over a single word which led to a short block. When the block ended he deliberately damaged the article in question, leading to a one month block.
	:#In his current phase his target is articles with the word "criticism" in the title, on the bizarre grounds that since in the phrase "criticism of X" the word X is the subject then so too in an article with that title the subject must be X, and since criticism is of necessity POV then that article must be a POV content fork of the main article about X and should be merged into the main article. This idea led to a wave of drive-by tagging and now to a sustained effort to merge some major articles including carrying out one merge against consensus. When challenged his response was a disruptive edit that earned him his most recent block. He pretends not to understand the reason for the block.
	:We dare not leave him alone to have his fun since experience shows that he will take silence for consent. We cannot persuade him since he rejects all discussion. Blocking makes him froth at the mouth but does not drive the message home.
	:We should show him the door. ] (]) 10:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Andy I would like to take this oppurtunity to engage in you the discussion that you feel I try and avoid. NPOV puts forward 3 standards. I apply these standards to every article. The idea is that every article meets these standards not two articles combined meets them. This is the discussion I try and have with you. ] (]) 10:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*I've had no interaction with this person and no involvement in any of the articles under dispute, but I've just read through the user's talk page since January (It's not archived so you have to keep checking past revisions). What I see is a shocking refusal or inability to listen to anything anyone says, coupled with an apparently unshakeable conviction that he can't possibly ever be wrong, and repeated personal attacks on anyone who tries to engage in discussion. I hate to say it, but this looks like someone who is simply incapable of working collaboratively with other people. ] (]) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	As a matter of process, I hope no action will be taken until ] has the opportunity to respond to these complaints. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Well, I ] him the chance to write something on his talk page that I'd put here when I notified him about the discussion. Response was negative in tone. ]<sup>]]</sup> 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: Yes, I see he removed your comment. And judging by his recent addition to his user page, it appears as if he wants to focus his editing on merging "Criticism of" articles with their primary subject article. I think properly merging articles, even when warranted, is a tricky job and should be undertaken by more experienced editors. But that's just my 2 cents. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::A huge issue, irrespective of experience and attitude, is that he is a very clumsy editor and frequently writes very poor English. is typical, introducing a grammatical error and a spelling mistake in two short sentences. And which leaves a single, almost meaningless sentence as the sole content of the article. I doubt that he ever checks what he writes, and as has been pointed out he simply will not accept that he makes errors. ] (]) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Of course I make the occasional error. No one is perfect and the point of Misplaced Pages is that no post is the last. When I see an editor make a mistake like say that Isaac asimov is "the most prolific writer of all time" I'll chuckle to myself, think of how I can improve it, and edit accordingly. I'm not perfect but I never have claimed to be. ] (]) 10:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::That makes my point, I'm afraid. The article in question never did contain the phrase "the most prolific writer of all time" but merely said that he was ''one of'' the most prolific writers. You deleted this without checking, as you so often do. In fact this claim was made in a[REDACTED] article about prolific writers and was properly sourced. You edit clumsily and without any kind of checking, frequently damaging articles, and then say anything you like to try to justify your actions. ] (]) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Isaac_Asimov&diff=prev&oldid=590127928 "One of the most prolific writers of all time" Which is impossible to verify since the future is unknown. the point is that when someone writes something like that, it's not a big deal. we can easily improve it. Andy I feel like you're upset. I'm sorry if I offended you. ] (]) 12:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:I certainly agree with Liz here, that nothing should be actioned until Bryce Carmony has had the chance to examine what's being said here at ANI and respond as he sees fit. He clearly wants to contribute constructively, and we shouldn't close the door on anyone who wants to help until all other avenues have been exhausted. ] (]) 16:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	Also, something I feel I should have put in my original post is his insistence that ] and ] ] are the reason that women don't edit Misplaced Pages. Personally, as a woman, the implication that we're more likely to run off than men in a mildly hostile environment is insulting. The gender imbalance has a number of causes, none as simple as this. ]<sup>]]</sup> 14:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:If you look back in his Talk to February you'll see that his problem at that time was with Irish admins rather than misogynistic ones. He wasn't, as it happens, under attack by Irish people at that time, AFAIK, any more than he is currently under attack by alpha males. The problem is that when he feels cornered, which is frequently, he says anything that he thinks will gain traction. Sometimes he's ultra-reasonable and compliant and sometimes wildly aggressive, but whatever it is he then goes straight back to doing what he wants. So don't waste your time thinking about the sexism thing - he doesn't mean it anyway. ] (]) 15:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I have made him aware of the discussion, , which it should have by now.--] (]) 23:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Fellow editors,This is Bryce, I hope I did not keep you waiting I had family over for dinner. Let me start of by saying that I assume that your criticisms, and proposed bans are all made in good faith, that while I disagree with you, I know that you all have wikipedias interest at heart no matter if any of your actions are misguided. That being said let me say that my intentions are only to make Misplaced Pages better.
			: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)
	*I have been accoused of disrupting Misplaced Pages, an accousation I feel is without merit. My actions have been in the interest of and informed by the Neutral Point of View Policy. for the sake of the discussion I will recap the policy for you.
			== Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP ==
	*The Point of view article is the the bedrock of Misplaced Pages. the ideal that has enabled us to coordinate millions of individuals to creating the greatest 💕 that the world has ever seen. Due to it's importance the NPOV policy can not be supersede by a consensus of editors, and it cannot be overridden by any other policy (Including Ignore all rules).
			{{atop
			| result = Edit summary revdel'd and {{noping2|GreatLeader1945}} blocked for one week for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
	*There are 3 standards laid out of how information in an article must be presented. 1- Fairly 2- Proportionately and 3- As far as possible from bias. the conjunction And is used (as opposed to or) so all 3 standards must be met, a violation of any of these 3 things is sufficient to create a NPOV conflict. I submit evidence that "Criticism of..." Articles violates information being portrayed fairly.
			Apologies if this is the incorrect location, ] is a BLP violation and may need redacting. ] (]) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*under article structure a warning is given that"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."
			: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 ]? ==
	*Criticism of articles are not only in a different section but go so far as to remove text into completely different articles. making the main article disproportionately portray non criticism and unfairly resigns criticism to articles that are void of the structure and information needed to create an encyclopedic article. defenses of this practice have been offered such as WP:article size, but as NPOV has a supremacy clause article size is void as a defennse for violating NPOV.
			{{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)
	*The solution is easy to achieve. instead of breaking up a single topic into 2 articles ( criticism and non criticism ) we break up a large topic into smaller subtopics. For example, Apple could have ( Apple Controversies, Apple Litigation, etc ) Often lawsuits are put into "criticism of articles" implying that lawsuits in themselves are crticisms. Criticism of articles include "Controversies" as criticism. Criticism of google states that simple the existence of a competitor is a "criticism" posting the information for "Scroogle" as a criticism.
			{{abot}}
			== Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations ==
	*NPOV is just words on a page, the only way it is given power is when we as editors take the words to heart and act on them. If we abandon NPOV when an article gets long or when someone sources an unflattering reality, then we resign[REDACTED] to fail. I do not believe in personal criticism, but I do believe in editor criticism, any editor who violates NPOV should be reasoned with and persuaded. If you feel that "Apple Inc." is fairly protraying all sources by banning criticism, if you think Google is proportionate when it bans criticism from the article, then say so, and we can discuss the matter. ] (]) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:This doesn't really address the point of this ANI, which is your behaviour. ] (]) 05:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I'm not here to get into a petty argument, if anyone thinks I'm rude I apologize , I never insult people personally I just disagree with editors and I respect any editor who disagrees with me to voice their opinion. I want to make[REDACTED] more inclusive not less so I'm not here pushing for bans. If people's feelings are hurt I suggest they be bold,[REDACTED] needs every single editor here and 10x more so I'm done wasting time talking about non issues. If you are assuming bad faith just say so now] (]) 06:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::*Bryce, you claim you "never insult people" - I'm sorry, but that's a clear lie. . Also, you are still making these merger proposals, such as . ] ] 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Bryce, regardless of whether or not what Luke has pointed out above is a personal attack, it is still a civility issue. --] (]) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Luke, I don't insult people personally, there's a difference between a personal attack, and a criticism about someones capacity in their job. I'll use an example to try and help you understand. "George W. Bush is a bad president" is not a personal attack. it is a crticism. "George W. Bush looks like a monkey" is a personal attack. I have the right to think certain admins are bad admins, you have the right to think certain editors are bad editors. If you need more examples to help understand the difference I'm happy to help you out. I assume good faith and that your concerns about avoiding "personal attacks" are well intended. ] (]) 09:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*How dare you respond in this arrogant and self-important way? Several serious-minded editors have called your behaviour into question and your response is to say that they are all "misguided", the accusations are "without merit", this is a "petty argument" and it is a waste of your time. And you have the presumption to lecture us on the principles of wikipedia? I agree with user Squinge: "this looks like someone who is simply incapable of working collaboratively with other people". ] (]) 09:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Andy, let me start by saying I assume good faith, that everything you have written here comes from an earnest desire to improve Misplaced Pages. There's not a doubt in my mind, however, I think your actions are not productive. I am trying to focus on a important topic. If your feelings have been hurt, I earnestly appologize that I made you feel bad. But let's focus on what's important. we have 500+ articles titled "controversy" a article format I strongly favor, and 150 articles with "Criticism of" a title I believe undercuts Misplaced Pages NPOV by segregating a single topic into two POVs creating a content fork. If you would like to write a few more posts that I'm arrogant, if that would make you feel better, by all means let it all out I encourage you. But I would really value your feedback on this. ] (]) 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	===Proposals===
	====Topic ban====
	*Since Bryce is ''still'' continuing to propose these mergers despite being advised against it, and is clearly not listening at all, I think we have only one option here (short of throwing an indefinite ban hammer); For persistently creating barely-valid merger requests after being told not to, whilst showing no signs of following ], Bryce Carmony is indefinitely prohibited from making any merger requests, broadly construed. ] ] 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::How are the merger requests invalid? I've gotten support in multiple articles supporting the merger. see ] for a case where people agree that we need to merge. Everyone says that my mergers have no merrits but no one will answer these questions:
			Dear admins,
	*Does banning criticism from ] give readers of the ] Article all information presented fairly?
			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.
	*Does banning criticism from ] represent all information in the ] article proportional coverage?
			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.
	*Does banning criticism from ] show a lack of bias in the ] article?
			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.
	take a moment to answer those questions honestly. I assume good faith that your concern over these mergers is well founded, but I think you are misguided, I'm happy to engage in a conversation but if you refuse to discuss NPOV then there isn't a lot I can do. ] (]) 09:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			I am happy to cooperate with all of you. Thanks for your time.
	*'''Oppose'''. I was on the verge of supporting this proposal until Bryce Carmony's most recent edits. This is not a person you can do business with. He will simply find another way of "fixing"[REDACTED] which will be equally disruptive. It also does not address the substantive issue, which is his attitude. His responses in this discussion show that he neither understands nor cares about our concerns. So I'm going to make a counter-proposal for a ban. ] (]) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::Andy, once again, I assume good faith, I believe in my heart of hearts that everything you're saying you believe to be in wikipedias best interest. I care about your opinion, I have repeatedly reached out to you in article talk discussions to try and get your opinion. If you feel like NPOV is best represented by segregating a topic into two articles with different POVs please say so, we can start from ground level. and take the policy page sentence by sentence and discuss the meaning, whatever it takes for us to see eye to eye. ] (]) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Fine, then why not reach out to me one more time by explaining ]?
	::::Absolutely, Andy I have been working on trying to find a way to increase the amount of female editors on Misplaced Pages, a local coffee shop I frequent I've had multiple discussion with friends about why they don't edit Misplaced Pages, one of the reasons I got was the hostile environment, I think 5AS is a hostile admin, I think you're a hostile editor. I assume good faith and know that both of you have the best intentions for wikipedia, but I want to extend a challenge to you, to be less hostile, and to be more inviting at Misplaced Pages, if someone starts a discussion about a core policy, engage them. I do my best to respond to any discussion from anyone here because I want you to know that I care about what you think. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't. Andy you are willing to ban editors over a single word in an article. I don't mean this in any way personal but as a professional opinion, I think you are hostile. ] (]) 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I don't believe that this will resolve the civility issues.--] (]) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:] 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)
	==== Six month block ====
			::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)
	'''Proposal: Six month ban.''' There is no evidence that this user has learned from anything that anyone has ever said to him on wikipedia, nor from any previous bans. There is plenty of evidence that he could not care less about our concerns. His arrogance is breathtaking, his attitude to other editors is deplorable and his editing is mediocre at best. Clearly, no sanction short of a ban will have any effect at all but a lengthy ban might, just might, make him stop and think. I doubt it, but for sure nothing else will work. ] (]) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::For added context, see ], from where the user was sent here. -- ] (]) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' I assume good faith in Andy, I know that he feels this ban proposal is best for Misplaced Pages, I politely disagree. As editors we are encouraged to be Bold. I do not consider my actions reckless, if you look at my merger proposals you can see an evolution to them, I take every objection and consider it truly. I try and make the mergers as easy as possible and break them down into small workable units. Look at the proposal for ] for an example of this. I am being bold and starting discussions on an issue. do we want these 150 "criticism of" articles to become 5,000 Criticism of articles 5 years from now. I think its important that we take a moment to really think about it. to truly go over our policies and look at what we want to do. If I have offended Andy in my boldness, I do apologize, but let's use the opportunity to look at this discussion. ] (]) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in Randa Kassis following her meeting with Donald Trump Jr., which was widely covered by newspapers and the press. I understand that she is seen as a controversial figure, particularly due to her relationship with Russia, as noted by Psychloppos. However, it is important to recognise her contributions as part of the opposition in achieving two significant initiatives: the Astana Platform, which she proposed to the first Kazakh president and successfully implemented to halt further Moscow Platform rounds, and the Constitutional Committee in 2017, endorsed by the troika and the United Nations as a pathway to peace. Notably, the Astana process was accepted by a large number of brigades, and the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) as well as the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) participated in the Constitutional Committee. There are numerous secondary sources confirming that.
	*Whilst I would rather go with the topic ban to give Bryce one last chance to sort themselves out, I also '''support''' this as a second option, particularly in lieu of their responses here. ] ] 10:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::I would like to emphasise that I am not a UPE and that my contributions have been made in good faith.
	::I assume good faith in Luke, I think he means what's best for[REDACTED] when he suggests I be banned for 6 months. that being said, I have to disagree. I ask questions about articles and NPOV. Luke if you could indulge my question, do you assume good faith in me and my actions? do you think I have wikipedias best interests at heart or do you think I want to make[REDACTED] a worse place. I value your feedback and would love to hear your response. ] (]) 10:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::I’m asking for your assistance in reviewing the deletion of the Astana content. Moreover I would like to highlight that decisions on Misplaced Pages are meant to be collective, not individual, which is why I believe in Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable platform. Thanks for your help.{{ping|Shirt58}} Your message here. ] (]) 09:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	::*You can cut that kind of sneering tone, thanks. That's one of the many reasons why you are a disruptive presence. ] ] 10:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::::Sorry again, due to my inexperience with templates, I asked AI to help me with pinging, and I copied and pasted without deleting« your message». 😔🙏 ] (]) 09:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I assume good faith, when luke says that my tone is sneering, I know he means it in the best interest of wikipedia, that being said I have to disagree. I am being sincere Luke, sometimes when we read words on a screen we put our emotions into those words. I want to avoid that and be as unambiguous as possible. I value your opinion, every edit I make is to improve wikipedia, if my boldness has offended you I sincerely, truly, and wholeheartedly apologize to you. I hope you don't read this as a sneer. it is not how I intend it. If you would like to discuss NPOV we can, if you aren't interested in that that's alright as well. ] (]) 10:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::::A word to the wise - people tend to look poorly upon chatbot generated complaints at this board. ] (]) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::*You can also drop the trolling as well, because no one is going to buy the rubbish you're writing above. ] ] 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Luck, I assume good faith in you, when you call me a troll I know that it is because you have Misplaced Pages best interest at heart. The only thing you could do to make me stop my good faith in you is if you were to blatantly vandalize articles. You've never done that so my faith in you is complete. I have to disagree with you, I am not trying to troll you, I am not trying to sneer at you, I am not trying to disrupt your work at Misplaced Pages, the only thing I am trying to do is work with you if you'd like, or without you if you wouldn't like. To improve the work in progress Misplaced Pages. You say that my mergers are without merrit, but when I look at mergers that gain support for example ] agreed that we should merge ] and ] , my meger for ] has 100% support so far. I hope you see that my efforts are sincere. ] (]) 11:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::*This is another example of the way that you lie and misrepresent in order to make a point. I certainly did not agree to that merger. You carried it out without consensus but since it was a very short article anyway I did not object. I confined myself to cleaning up the mess that you left behind after a clumsy series of edits (which points up what Liz was saying earlier in this discussion). ] (]) 11:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I'm sorry I didn't mean to misrepresent you. It's hard to tell what you mean sometimes. Do you support creating "Criticism of communism" as an article? returning it to the 100 words that it had? I don't want to "lie" about what you mean. If you want to revert the edits and go back to it. Let's go back and we can take it up in discussion. I assume good faith in you Andy ] (]) 11:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Bryce, when you repeatedly say things like "''I assume good faith, when luke says ...., I know he means it in the best interest of wikipedia, that being said I have to disagree''", can you really not see how condescending that is? ] (]) 11:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Also, this discussion isn't about the merge proposals themselves, it's about the way you interact with other people. And your style of interaction over the past few months has been truly horrible. I think that's what you need to focus on here, and not the actual merges. ] (]) 11:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I don't find it condescending at all, being 100% honest if Luke were to tell me that he had good faith in me, I would appreciate it. Squinge, I have good faith in you, I don't mean that to be condescending I mean it sincerely. I want us as editors to look at these words on these pages and to take them seriously. I attend a university where professors mock[REDACTED] every day, I wear my Misplaced Pages sweaters and Track sweater ( the blue one I dunno what it's called ) becuase I'm proud to be apart of Misplaced Pages. I want people to realize how amazing[REDACTED] is, and I want wikipedians to believe in the words. when we say "neutral point of view" I want us to mean it. I am bold, in my boldness I might have been over critical of other editors, if that is the case, I don't know how many times I can apologize, but what I can say is I'm open to the NPOV discussion. I don't want to hack it in broad strokes. I want to reach a mutual understanding. The way I interact with people is with respect. Users like andy have a different style, if you add a broken link by mistake they might be hyper critical, call you sloppy, say it's "incredible" that you don't get it, and be hostile. I understand that is his style. My style is different. When I see mistakes of others I try to fix them not criticize them. I'm a sucker for that Dale Carnegie style of working. When someone disagrees with me, I respect them enough to give them 100% of my full opinion why I may disagree with them. I hope everyone respects me enough to give me 100% of their opinions if they disagree with me. when you say that I am "horrible" I know that you have wikipedias best interest at heart. ] (]) 11:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I didn't say *you* are horrible, just the way you have been interacting with people. Anyway, I've told you how I think you're coming across, and several others have offered their thoughts too. If you don't want to listen and instead keep on insisting you've done no wrong then that's entirely up to you, but I'll spend no more time trying to help. ] (]) 11:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::I am not saying I've done no wrong. Why would I appologize if I haven't done anything wrong? I'm being bold, I know that, and I know that some people think my ambitious merger of 150 out of 4.7 million articles is ambitious. but when I read the NPOV policy its the direction I see, I hope to discuss and convince you of that vision. 10 years from now how many Criticism of articles do we want in wikipedia? do we want every company to be able to white wash their "main" article and make it look great while their "criticism" article looks horrible and therefore uncredible, that isn't the Misplaced Pages that will best serve the reader, that's what this is about I hope to rally your support. If you don't want to work with me I understand, but I hope we can come together to make[REDACTED] a better encyclopedia. The way I interact is when you call me a sneering troll , I chose to be bold, I chose to not take that personally. Luke isn't "personally attacking me" he is just frustrated, I cut him slack because there's no point in arguing over stuff like that, he's a good guy, that is what matters. ] (]) 11:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{od}} Bryce, I have every confidence that you are trying to improve Misplaced Pages in the way you know best. However, we are a community. We have to work together to work on articles. When you saw how many people were against your mergers, why didn't you stop to consider if we were right? Instead, you made personal attacks and were just inconsiderate as a whole. Anyway, one of the reasons I started this was to get other people's input on the situation. {{ping|Andyjsmith}} and {{ping|Lukeno94}}, why don't we step back for a bit and see what other people think of this? ]<sup>]]</sup> 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Origamite, NPOV is immune to consensus. I am willing to discuss the NPOV policy. I keep asking the question if people feel that Crit of articles meet the 3 standards set out in NPOV. but they have been reluctant to engage in the discussion. When I'm called a "sloppy" or "terrible" or "Horrible" or "mediocre at best" or "clumsy" editor, I don't take it personally. I chose to be bold, learn from my mistakes, take the feedback , and move forward. A recent edit I mistakenly posted a broken link, I didn't realize it, a editor pointed it out, I checked how to see if links are broken, and then removed the links since they were broken. I learned and now I know. I'm open to learning, I open to any single person telling me I'm wrong. But I have to go by policy. NPOV has a supremacy clause, so when you say WP:Article Size. that doesn't matter, NPOV trumps it. So we have to get down to a discussion. is segregating a topic into a criticism and non criticism article NPOV appropriate. we need to ask ourselves the 3 standards we have. You say my attacks are personal, I don't think I make personal attacks, I think any criticism I have towards anyone here is in their capacity as an admin or an editor. I am not inconsiderate I just consider the NPOV policy. Origamite I assume good faith in you, I know you have the best interest of wikipedia. I'm glad you feel the same way about me. I want to move past this so we can get on to more important issues. ] (]) 11:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: I would like to point out that I have appologized multiple times to multiple people. If anyone is offended that I think this sort of hostility towards boldness is off putting, I'm sorry. I don't think this is a very welcoming community right now. If an editor was passionate and bold and proposing ideas to make[REDACTED] better, I would be thrilled, that editor is needed, can we at least agree on that? that 125,000 editors is not enough for 4.7 million articles? We need to band together and bolster our numbers not turn on one another and hack down our ranks. Andy wants to "show me the door" but I wouldn't ever dream of banning him. I value his contributions, I hope to convince him to be less hostile. but every single person here is needed, I can't stress that enough. ] (]) 11:49, 16 March 2015 (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)
	This article is getting pretty long but I would like to add some discussions I've really been enjoying these merger proposals:
	*] a user had a great idea to create an article to address length + NPOV .
	*] a user agrees with the NPOV interpretation.
	*] this user strongly disagrees but the discussion is really bringing out some cool stuff.
			: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.
	I know some people here might feel that my mergers are without merit but I disagree. and I think looking at these discussions is a fair look to how I interact with fellow editors. ] (]) 11:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			: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 or several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages, make her look more important than she actually was within the Syrian opposition, obfuscate her ties to Russia and perhaps even embellish her professional credentials. The ] page and all mentions of her and her role in the Syrian civil war, the Syrian opposition and the peace talks endorsed by Russia need to be cleaned up and closely monitored. ] (]) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Hi everyone,
			::::As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in Randa Kassis following her meeting with Donald Trump Jr., which was widely covered by newspapers and the press. I understand that she is seen as a controversial figure, particularly due to her relationship with Russia, as noted by Psychloppos. However, it is important to recognise her contributions as part of the opposition in achieving two significant initiatives: the Astana Platform, which she proposed to the first Kazakh president and successfully implemented to halt further Moscow Platform rounds, and the Constitutional Committee in 2017, endorsed by the troika and the United Nations as a pathway to peace. Notably, the Astana process was accepted by a large number of brigades, and the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) as well as the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) participated in the Constitutional Committee. There are numerous secondary sources confirming that.
			::::I would like to emphasise that I am not a UPE and that my contributions have been made in good faith.
			::::I’m asking for your assistance in reviewing the deletion of the Astana content. Moreover I would like to highlight that decisions on Misplaced Pages are meant to be collective, not individual, which is why I believe in Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable platform. Thanks for your help. ] (]) 07:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::To put some flesh on the bones of the suggestion made above by ] that they are {{tq|convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person or several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages|}}... details can be found in this recent post elsewhere by ], mentioning various accounts including Ecrivain Wagner and ].
			:::::A recent sockpuppet investigation into Hazar Sam seems to have come up with nothing. However, I note that ] was not included in that SPI.
			:::::The activity of multiple SPA type accounts in relation to Randa Kassis and related subjects extends beyond English Misplaced Pages to French Misplaced Pages (and perhaps beyond, I don’t know). In that connection it may be worth noting that three of Ecrivain Wagner’s few non-Kassis related edits (on English Misplaced Pages) relate to the British TV show ] ( , and ) and that a month or so later Hazar Sam was editing the equivalent article on French Misplaced Pages, here , making the identical point (that it is a British series rather than a US one). Both the Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam accounts are active on both English and French Misplaced Pages. Hazar Sam is the primary author of the (English) Randa Kassis article (38.2% of the current text).
			:::::The level of coincidence here seems rather extreme given that the TV series has no connection to Randa Kassis etc. It may be worth someone’s while to re-run the SPI including Ecrivain Wagner (not a process I am familiar with unfortunately, otherwise I would do it myself).
			:::::I have no opinion on the issues of promotion or whether the Astana/Kassis redirect was right or wrong. I just happened to spot the coincidence above and thought I should mention it. ] (]) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Some further detail here. The Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam accounts show very similar patterns of activity on both English and French Misplaced Pages.
			::::::English Misplaced Pages:
			::::::Ecrivain Wagner account opened on 20 Feb 2016. It is then dormant for over 3 years.
			::::::Hazar Sam opened their account on 19 Mar 2016 and started editing on Randa Kassis a fortnight later. The Hazar Sam account is then almost entirely dormant for the better part of 3 years before starting to edit around the Syrian peace process on 19 May 2019.
			::::::The long dormant Ecrivian Wagner then starts editing (on the same sort of subject matter) on 25 Jun 2019 (i.e. a few weeks after Hazar Sam returns from a similarly long break).
			::::::Both accounts are then very active in that topic area in Jun/Jul 2019 before both cease editing altogether. Both then re-commence editing in the same topic area in Sep-Nov 2019. Both are then entirely dormant for a year until Sept-Oct 2020 when both start again.
			::::::The Wagner account is then entirely dormant for 3 and a half years until May 2024, when it makes a few edits, later making some edits on Randa Kassis in Sept 2024. Then, apart from the Slow Horses activity (noted in a previous post), it is dormant until a few days ago when it becomes animated re: the Astana/Kassis redirect.
			::::::The Hazar Sam account is also almost entirely dormant for an almost identical period from Oct 2020 to Mar 2024, barring a few Kassis related edits. It only makes a handful of edits during 2024 before starting a significant amount of Kassis-related activity in December 2024.
			::::::Activity on French Misplaced Pages is basically the same, with both accounts being active in Sep/Oct 2020 and Oct 2024 and otherwise being pretty much entirely dormant.
			::::::
			::::::I would therefore suggest that the periods when these accounts are active and dormant pretty much mirror each other all the way from 2016 to 2024, both on English and French Misplaced Pages, that they are pretty much always editing solely in the same topic area, and that there is very strong reason to believe that both accounts are thus being operated by the same end user. ] (]) 11:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Since Randa Kassis - as far as I know - lives in France and has made some appearances in the French media, published a book in France and so on, it makes sense that a French speaker interested in the topic of the Syrian civil war would be at least a little familiar with her (that is, if they do not have actual connections with her). ] (]) 12:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::True, but that doesn’t explain why the end user was apparently maintaining two accounts on English Misplaced Pages - one for the purpose of being a major contributor to various Kassis-related articles, and one for the purpose of being a minor contributor and complaining on various different forums when those same articles were impacted by a redirect.
			::The user has already admitted to indulging in ] behaviour , which they describe as {{tq|enjoy a little anonymous fun}}. The Slow Horses activity and the overall timeline from 2016-2024 indicates very strongly that the user was operating two registered accounts over an extended period of time.
			::And, if further proof is needed…
			::Apart from the various Kassis-related articles which both accounts have edited (plus the unrelated ]), they have also edited the article for ], making identical edits here and here under the two different accounts.
			::The user has already asked to be blocked here during a recent discussion on their talk page re: SPI, personal attacks and legal threats. They say they are {{tq|tired of the rules}} and that {{tq|If blocking me makes you happy, then by all means, crack on—I’ve no desire left to contribute. I won’t bite my tongue just to win your approval and keep engaging on a platform that’s rapidly losing its credibility}}.
			::Maybe it's time for an admin to let the user have what it seems they are looking for. ] (]) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I guess you're right. ] (]) 14:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for raising your concerns. I’m open to any necessary processes, including CheckUser, to help resolve this misunderstanding. I understand the importance of clarifying these doubts, and I want to affirm that my goal has always been to contribute in good faith. Additionally, I’d like to highlight that my contributions to articles about Randa Kassis were made with a neutral tone and were always supported by reliable references. 🙏 ] (]) 15:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Mass Removal of External Links by User:Dronebogus. ==
	:'''Support''' - Bryce clearly doesn't understand how to work within a community. He has continued to blatantly disregard community agreements. Assuming good faith only goes so far; once a user repeatedly continues an action after the community disagrees with that action, good faith can no longer be assumed. - ] ] 16:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: What has the community agreed on? 1 - there is no agreement that the community has reached. some people support these mergers some don't, I'm facilitating discussion and particpating. what "agreement" are you referring to? 2 - NPOV cannot be overwritten by a consensus, so if there is an agreement that says "we won't merge any crit of article with any other article" and people ( like me and others ) view that as a NPOV conflict, consensus doesn't get to mute that. I am trying to work WITH the community, not against it, which is why I am proposing merges not cutting and pasting entire articles together. ] (]) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strongly support''' - Unfortunately, I am now coming to the conclusion that a topic ban isn't going to be enough. Bryce's persistent walls-of-text and wikilawyering is just getting absolutely ridiculous now, and enough is enough. This is now my preferred sanction. ] ] 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' A topic ban would not be enough as it will not stop the civility issues. I support this and would suggest that if the same behaviour happens once the block has finished that the next block be indefinite.--] (]) 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''': I oppose this on several levels (having been already ]ed above, probably the ], actually).
	:#I thought the sanctions were designed as escalating. The next block, I thought (I admit I could be wrong), would be a 72 hour block, not a 4,392 hour block, would it not?
	:#Wondering aloud, because I'm not an advanced comprehender of admin policies, to what extent is Admin 5AS "involved" having led the previous block regimen applied to the subject of the discussion, and do we not need an "uninvolved" admin to make a measured proposal here?
	:#I've yet to see any diffs here, having tried, that have so offended another editor as to justify such a draconian sanction. Indeed, much of what has transpired is actually a content dispute, and belongs at ], not here.
	:#I can be against Bryce's proposed merges, and argue in favor of his actions, to which he has now ascribed quixotism, an apt description, at the same time. One does not preclude the other. I cite ] in my defense of this "oppose" to the proposal here discussed, in order to argue in Bryce's favor.
	:#It seems nobody will defend Bryce, including those who've experienced this same, or a similar, strife in their own life. So I will. Call me "Sancho".
	:#The proposer refers to a "block" in the title, and a "ban" in the proposal. As this is basic, not advanced, policy, I do not think the proposer knows what he/she is talking about in the first place. Which are we, the above, supporting or or opposing? I call the proposal on procedural grounds, as improperly proposed in the first place.
	:#While I agree with ]'s argument above that "AGF only goes so far", I disagree that this is the time to drop that faith. In another (totally different) context, I recently did drop my faith in the case of proven spam by an editor. That's the time to drop that faith, not this.
	:For these seven reasons, and others here not yet argued, I "oppose", and request of ANI in general and Admins in particular, a more measured and well considered sanction against ], if any at all. &nbsp;&nbsp;&mdash;] (]) 03:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Bryce has previously been blocked for a month (for edit warring, a very similar sort of thing), so they were ''very'' lucky to only receive a 24 hour block this time around. Every time they've come back from a block, they've almost immediately resumed some kind of disruption. 5AS is not involved. Trying to wikilawyer around a user being confused between the differences of bans and blocks is lame. I think Bryce has shown that they can't be trusted to respect the community's wishes, and I don't really buy the so-called apologies - I view them as a last-ditch attempt at getting away scot-free. Call ''that'' a lack of AGF if you will, but people this stubborn don't just cave in like that without an ulterior motive, and experience has shown it to happen over and over. ] ] 11:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			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.
	{{hat}}
	NPOV Discussion
	'''Proposal: We discuss NPOV''' It has become clear that among us there is a difference of opinion on interpreting the Neutral Point of View policy. The policy is vast so this isn't entirely surprising, however, The best thing for us to do, is to discuss this. I propose that we sit down, and go over the policy and find common ground, make a plan, and act. ] (]) 12:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:'''Support'''] (]) 12:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Do you seriously believe that this fatuous suggestion is the best way to answer the well-founded concerns and criticisms of so many editors? Surely you cannot have managed to convince yourself that this discussion about your lack of civility and aggression is actually a debate about[REDACTED] NPOV policy? This is pretty much your last chance to sort things out - there can be little doubt that a sanction of some sort is impending. I suggest that you acknowledge these concerns and accept that the fault lies with you, and make it clear on this forum that you are now prepared to edit collaboratively and within the guidelines and above all to behave civilly and without contempt towards other editors. ] (]) 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: Andy, I respect you, I want to have an open and productive conversation with you. if you feel like I am being aggressive, I apologize that is not my intention. I don't want to make this a fight at all. I feel like you are being the aggressive one, but it doesn't need to be that way. I am being civil towards you, I am exercising good faith, will you do the same? ] (]) 12:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: Also, I have more than apologized for any offense I've given you, I know that I'm not perfect and I have faults. But I am not being uncivil. I think we need to state what our objectives here are. My objective is to apologize to anyone who has been offended and to promote the open discussion about a serious look at the NPOV policy as it relates to certain articles. What is your objective here? so we can get on the same page and understand one another. ] (]) 13:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
			Here are some examples of their removals:
	==== Indefinite ban from creating merger proposals or anything related to merging ====
	*'''Support''' - This user just came off his <u>4th block this year</u> and doesn't appear to be finished -- It's clear to me that he doesn't fully comprehend what is being asked of him by the community and therefore I see no other solution than a ban. -- ] (]) 12:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::'''oppose''' , I understand that what I'm proposing is difficult for some people. I understand 100% how it is easier to create a "Criticism section" that grows and grows , we chose not to weave in the content into a single narrative until finally it's so big we make it it's own page. it's happened a few times, not that many, only about 150 (give or take) times. Turning back now will be difficult, I understand that 100% but if we continue the trend, of allowing Criticisms to be segregated instead of integrated, we won't like the end result and it'll be even harder to stop it. We have the opportunity as editors to correct course, to sit down, consider NPOV, discuss the best course of action, and act. I respect Somedifferentstuff, but I disagree that I should be banned forever because I have proposed a few mergers. People say that Misplaced Pages is a mob rule rabble, but I disagree, I know that we respect our policies and our rules. If Somedifferentstuff or any other user would like to have a discussion about Articles that purge criticism into a separate article and if they pass the 3 standards of NPOV. I am happy to have that discussion. I don't mean to offend. I don't mean to disrupt. i'm here to make[REDACTED] better. ] (]) 12:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I am going to sleep, I want to say to origamite, to andy, to luke, to somestuff, to 5as, to liz, and anyone else I might have forgotten. I am not trying to cause problems. the merger workload I have right now is a lot. I'm not planning on adding more since I have a lot of work getting the current ones completed. The ] merger is unopposed and I suspect will begin soon. I won't lie, my goal is to reach a[REDACTED] with 0 "Criticism of" articles. but it doesn't have to happen over night. I respect every single one of you, i respect your opinions, I respect your feedback, I read everything you write to me and I offer the invention to anyone, if you truly in your heart of hearts feel that I am wrong on NPOV. I want to discuss this civilly and openly. Years from now[REDACTED] could look a lot different depending on how we act today. I don't want to cause trouble, I never have. ] (]) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::before I go to bed, here's how I think I like to interact with others. here's a post of mine from 3 days ago about a merger to Aladdin Sane ( who disagrees with the merger )
			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.
	::Even if we don't end up merging "criticism of linux" and "linux" together, I like that you have done a lot recently to improve "criticism of linux" you don't need my approval by any means but I wanted to express my gratitude I think you're awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Why, thank you. I've some other suggestions I may bring up on the Talk page. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (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.
	::] (]) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::The Yahoo! merger has '''''1''''' other person's views. Why not let some others weigh in? ]<sup>]]</sup> 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::] has some clear guidance on merging, including advising other editors and usually waiting for at least 30 days. Given the tone of this discussion, a merger on Yahoo! or any other article "soon" would clearly be intentionally disruptive. ] (]) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Andy, you have refused to wait 30 days, you've taken down the merger banners before the 30 day mark, I feel like that is a little disruptive, but I'm not here to argue with you. I haven't taken any action in Yahoo and I don't plan to until the discussion is complete.
	:::::I am waiting for others to weigh in, that is why I have taken NO ACTION about the merger. what I have done is repeatedly link to that talk page here to try and get additional feedback on that merger. If you want to criticize me and say "you don't care what anyone thinks" then why do I try so hard to facilitate discussion? You can call me a sneering troll, an arrogant editor to and ask me "how dare I talk about NPOV" you can say all those things if it makes you guys feel better, I don't care if that's what you say about me, what I do care about is is getting your feedback on the issues. Also, WP:NPOV has a supremacy clause, there is no supremacy clause in WP:MERGEPROP, I'm not trying to be disruptive, I'm just trying to address an NPOV issue but I am the only one. when I propose discussion I'm greeted with "how dare I" ] (]) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::*It's worth reading the comments by ] at ] - they illustrate the issues that Bryce Carmony is wading into, and the need for these matters to be handled by an expert and well-informed editor. He gives strong reasons for not merging based on the specifics of the subject and the article's history, but Bryce Carmony's response is to sidestep this and instead deliver a homily on how "writing NPOV is hard but it is something we can do". ] (]) 19:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::I respect User:Rjensen, we're lucky to have him here at Misplaced Pages, and I agree that some of these mergers will be hard, some are pretty easily ( criticism of communism wasn't hard at all ) but the question is NPOV. I'm going to quote from NPOV a section I quoted before and I said "how dare I" but let's look at the text. "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure" That is what is happening here. I'm not trying to work against RJensen, I'm trying to work with RJensen. ] (]) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', as this is in essence just an expanded version of my proposal, and Bryce is still spouting falsehoods above and continuing with their same-old disruptive behaviour. ] ] 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::When you chose to use language like "spouting" instead of "stating" to me it shows that this is becoming personal to you. You've made repeated personal attacks at me, and in response all I have to offer you is my apology, I am sorry luke. I can tell something I did really seemed to hurt you, you don't have to accept my apology I wouldn't dream of demanding that, but I do offer it. ] (]) 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			Thank you,
	*'''Oppose''', as before: it won't stop him and it doesn't address the issue of behaviour to other editors. ] (]) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			JD Gale <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::I don't know what it is about my behavior that bothers you so much. when I ask you direct questions to try and resolve an issue you lie or play games or insult me or say it's justification to ban me. I feel like you might not have good faith in me, the same way that I have good faith in you. ] (]) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:I found one of the discussions you refer to: for interested readers—] <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And pertaining to that discussion and article, Dronebogus removed.
			::And at Origami, these were removed.
			::And at Knitting, these were removed.]] 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:On Origami, they removed links showing ] talking about and performing Origami folding despite him being one of the worlds leading theorists on Origami. On Knitting, they removed links to the trade associated for knitting yarn manufacturers which is a common link on a subject, a link to the UIllinois LibGuide that has librarian curated links to in-depth research material about knitting, and all the categories and authority control templates. They did go back and add back the categories it but the first swipe shows carelessness. Everytime I see Dronebogus at ANI, it seems to be for taking some guideline and going hard core enforcing it without any nuance or care. {{ping|Floquenbeam}} summed it up best: "]" <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 20:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I have zero useful opinions on this particular issue, but since at least one person has said "per Floquenbeam", I do want to make sure it's clear that I was talking about much different behavior, a long while ago. This isn't really that. Just a clarification, not a defense of whatever is happening here. ] (]) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Understood and apologies if I made it appear you were commenting on this behavior. I was wondering where I saw DB's name before and I finally put two and two together with the previous XFD discussion and other ANI discussions. I saw your quote and thought, at least in my mind, applied to this situation and I could not state it better. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping|sp}} Editing some random topic and getting into an argument is not “wandering around looking for something to be outraged about”. It’s a fundamental part of editing Misplaced Pages. I prune external links pretty regularly and without controversy. I was not wading into some obviously contentious issue looking for trouble. ] (]) 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			: These should be reverted, per {{u|sp}} and especially Floquenbeam's comment. ] (]) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::In '''Links to be considered''', ] lists {{tq|Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.}} Dronebogus thinks that line is and doesn't "buy that guidance". Dronebogus thinks external links need to be (whatever that means). It isn't unusual for an editor to disagree with some bit of guidance on the project, but the productive approach is to try to get consensus to modify the guidance, not to make up their own version and apply it despite objections. ]&nbsp;] 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Notable means ]. What else? ] (]) 11:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This looks like a content issue that should be addressed on the talk-pages of the respective articles. If I've followed correctly, I believe the timeline is:
			:*Jan 8: Dronebogus with the comment {{tq|how about none}}
			:*Jan 10: JD Gale with no edit description. Dronebogus then with the edit description {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by JD Gale (talk): No rationale provided for restoring a huge link farm of seemingly WP:OWNed personal opinion}}
			:*Jan 16: JD Gale on the article talk page.
			:*Jan 22: JD Gale made ] referencing the Knitting and Origami pages. Dronebogus then removed the external links in those articles ( ).
			:*Jan 23: Dronebogus on the External links talk page asking for clarification. Around 7 hours later, JD Gale .
			:As it stands, I'm just seeing a content dispute and a difference in interpretation of EL guidelines that is appropriately migrating to the EL talk page for clarification. Is there some context I'm missing here? ] (]) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:These link removals strike me as extremely bad, in the sense that they are deliberately making an article less useful to readers as an educational resource, with apparently very little in the way of justification. This would seem in some sense to be a content dispute, but there is indeed a recurring issue where DB ends up at some noticeboard over pointlessly rude and aggressive behaviors, over the span of some years now. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Opening a thread on the external links talk page is at least a step towards wisdom, but frankly, if I am unclear on the purpose or meaning of a policy, I would not go around trying to enforce it by removing giant reams of stuff. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{ping|JPxG}} I feel like every time this happens it’s someone criticizing me for doing the right thing a little too slowly. ] (]) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I am sorry I bulk removed the stuff on the origami and knitting pages. It was poor form in the midst of a content dispute. I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject. I personally don’t think this needed to escalate this far, especially since I received no talk page warning before ANI. It was a content dispute that got a little heated and I overstepped my reach on. I see nothing in my conduct here that would rise to the level of sanctioning when you take into account some established contributors are repeatedly allowed to walk back on grossly insulting people and generally dancing on the limits of acceptable conduct. ] (]) 07:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject." the problem here is that when you were told the official guidelines on external links like Schazjmd laid out above, you completely disregarded them and went by what you think the guidelines should be to ''you''. It's one thing if you don't like the guidelines, that's perfectly fine, but to blow them off the way you did just isn't on. Every Misplaced Pages editor (probably) has policies/guidelines they don't like, but they don't get to violate them just because they don't like them. <span>♠] ]</span>♠ 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Then what is ]? Because it’s been evoked both ways in this argument, and it seems like it’s only valid if it’s against me. There are no rules on what can be an EL, except when there are, and those rules are Dronebogus cannot remove any of them. ] (]) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Dronebogus, you know damn well that IAR is only applied in really rare extenuating circumstances that this obviously doesn't fall under. IAR also isn't a "get out of following policies and guidelines" card either. Someone can't e.g. change the British spelling of colour/armour/etc. to the American spelling all willy-nilly and shout IAR in their defense, because that's disruptive. (Not equating this to that, but am using this as an illustration). And the latter is a complete strawman. You were told the guidelines on external links and brushed them off. Removing irrelevant links is one thing, removing relevant informational links is another, and relevant informational links are permitted by the current EL guidelines. Now you may argue if the latter are important enough in the article to keep, that's fine, but those are debates for the individual article talk pages. <span>♠] ]</span>♠ 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No, I don’t “know damn well”, ''because that’s not what the ] page says''. Am I just supposed to infer this from some mass of case law that is not discussed there? In any case I am no longer doing it, I acknowledged that some of my edits were sloppy, I took it to the talk page of the policy, is there something else I need to do? I apologize for being somewhat curt but I personally think that ] isn’t entirely in the right either by taking this ''directly'' to ANI instead of discussing it on my talk page. I don’t know if they know this but “summoning” someone to ANI is generally regarded as “taking the kid gloves off” at best and ] at worst. As with most of these situations I’d like to let it drop and actually discuss the issue at ] like I was attempting to do. ] (]) 09:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::WP:IAR relates to edits directed to '''improving or maintaining''' Misplaced Pages. Removing useful ELs serves neither purpose. ] (]) 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Not everyone considers them useful. I don’t agree with the maximalist school of thought that’s apparently prevalent on Wikimedia— the idea that adding is the greatest good and removing is at best a necessary evil, or that ] only applies to adding content. If the overwhelming consensus is that what I just said is, to some extent, true, then it should be an official guideline. But this is a grey area, which should be settled by discussion rather than yelling at me that I broke a deliberately vague rule. Once again, I acknowledge removing a bunch of links in the middle of a content dispute about removing a bunch of links is not good, and I wouldn’t have edit warred it back after it was inevitably reverted. But you can’t sanction me for having a different definition of “useful” than an apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of. ] (]) 11:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::{{tq|n apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of}}.
			::::::::You're aware of it now. ] (]) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Yes, ''after the fact''. ] (]) 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Generally speaking, when making similar edits across multiple articles it's a good idea to stop or slow down when someone raises an objection in order to avoid ] problems. Edits made across a large number of articles are more difficult to reverse, so editors are generally expected to be more receptive to objections and more willing to discuss them if one comes up. --] (]) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes, I probably should have stopped sooner. But I only made two similar edits after the objection, which is not hard to reverse. This level of escalation would have made more sense if I had just kept going and going. ] (]) 14:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			I wonder what the supposed improvement is from the link to '']'', a documentary by ] on the website of the ] about the ship from the article ]. Your incorrect arguments about the links needing to be notable clearly don't apply here.
	::I think it is worth noting that Andy might have an agenda, he has taken me to ANI before and called me "hysterical" along a few other insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Edit_warring.2C_disruption.2C_incivility_and_harassment_by_user:Bryce_Carmony ] (]) 19:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' -- Bryce Carmony has a bee in his bonnet-- several bees. Worse, he has been unable to learn anything from his too-intensive and too-frequent interactions. All that buzzing means he cannot recognize a consensus when it is against him. That inability to learn, in my opinion, has been highly disruptive. It disqualifies him from proposing mergers, especially regarding controversies. ] (]) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I've never proposed a merger of a "Controversy" article. I have proposed a few mergers of articles that split topics by the POV ( Criticism vs non criticism ) an article ] is not the same as ] ] (]) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''oppose''' As before. It won't address the civility issues.--] (]) 23:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			Similarly, under the guise of pruning a "link farm" from two to one entries, you removed an interview that ] had on ] radio from . No idea either why you e.g. from ] the link to his entry on ], a reliable source used extensively on enwiki and here presenting an aspect otherwise not touched upon in the article. It looks as if your external links mission has done more harm than good, even in those cases where no one objected so far. ] (]) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hat}}
	Clarification request from ]
			:The first two would be much better used as sources. The link to ''White Lady'' would be much better used on the article about that movie. The Comicpedia one was a mistake and I’ve restored it. Keeping these arbitrary links tacked on to the page does not improve the article. Using the ''information'' in them would. I stand by these as legitimate, non-disruptive edits even if you disagree with them. ] (]) 15:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	Andy J smith when asked what the subject of "Criticism of Libertarianism" is, stated : Eh? The subject of the one article is libertarianism and the subject of the other is criticism (specifically, criticism of libertarianism). In general, the subject of a[REDACTED] article is given by its title. andy (talk)
			::How does removing a link to a good source improve an article? You didn’t cite it, you just erased it. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It’s not erased, it’s in the history. But I’m salvaging some of the links right now and will try to do this in the future before deleting them. I am more than willing to learn from my mistakes; it’s just that whenever I end up at ANI I assume it’s because someone wants me removed from the project, or otherwise punished, because that’s just what ANI is used for. ] (]) 15:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:Adillia ==
	Then when he wrote to 5 albert square he said that the topic of "Criticism of Libertarianism" is in fact "Libertarianism" I just am confused, since he is saying that his advice to me on what the topic was is his justification that I have disrupted wikipedia. I want to know what the topic of "criticism of libertarianism" is. is it criticism? or is it libertarianism? thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide andy. ] (]) 12:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|status=interaction ban|result={{ul|Aidillia}} and {{ul|D.18th}} are hereby ] with each other, everywhere on Misplaced Pages, subject to the ]. They are also indefinitely ] in the File: namespace and are ]. For clarity: the filespace restriction is ] and does not extend to edits related to images and media in other namespaces. Violations of the first restriction may be enforced by any administrator with escalating ] and may lead to further sanctions per ]. {{pb}}This may be considered an ] close since I commented below, but these two restrictions have been separately proposed three different times throughout this ongoing incident, and there has been unanimous support each time and overall, therefore I see no way that any competent closer would not reach the same conclusion.{{pb}}-- ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 12:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	{{hab}}
			{{Userlinks|Aidillia}}
	=== I officially redact all merger proposals ===
	Fellow editors, I appreciate your feedback and agree. my mergers are not appropriate for[REDACTED] at this time. I have begun the process of removing the proposals, It took me a while to see the light but I realize now that you guys are right. These mergers aren't the way to go. ] (]) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:That's a breathe of fresh air Bryce, good job. -- ] (]) 23:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Thanks some, I know it took longer than it should have been I see that you guys are right. I was trying to argue against the consensus which isn't the way we should do things. I have removed all the tags. I want to apologize to everyone for being too zealous. ] (]) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Although this change of heart followed immediately after my intervention ], I'll wait a little while before concluding that the leopard has definitely changed its spots. ] (]) 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on ] but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like ] and ], where the file are uploaded in ] and abided ] but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did ].
	=== I apologize for being incivil ===
	in my zeal I was tilting at windmills, I got caught up in the moment and in that lapse I didn't treat you with the respect and civility you deserve, I realize that now, I was in the wrong. I am sorry for letting this escalate so much. ] (]) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. ] ] 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	Bryce, there are ] equally important pillars (or bedrocks), and none has supremacy over the others.
			: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)
	Others: ANI is not <small>supposed to be</small> Misplaced Pages's version of the ] where we engage in the ] of thumbs-up, thumbs-down ''block this editor''! (e.g. ]). Additionally, in general neither the veracity nor the persuasiveness of a position is enhanced by repetition; on ANI specifically it's a good way to help a thread devolve into a wall o' text few editors are going to wade through. <small>]</small> 09:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Throwing up walls of text is one of Bryce's standard tactics... ] ] 12:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)		::] you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::] i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on ]. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as . You know that we rely more on ] ] ] rather on official website or social media accounts as they are ], so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. ] ] 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::] and ]. I have other ] in real life. ] ] 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on ]. You will just engaged in ]. I've also seen you revert on ]; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. ] (]/]) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::'''Support''' an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at ]. Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. ] ] 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== User:D.18th ===
	== User removing content from RSN discussion ==
			{{atop|1=Withdrawn. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{Userlinks|D.18th}}
			<s>This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore ].</s> <span style="font-family:Cursive">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	User {{userlinks|Formerly 98}} has repeatedly removed content ({{diff|Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard|diff=651066484|oldid=651064270}}, {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard|diff=651431836|oldid=651431485}}) from a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. I believe this content is relevant to the discussion, as it provides context for the question being discussed. Formerly 98 apparently considers the material a personal attack, per his edit summaries. Regardless, this user should not be deleting comments from an ongoing discussion. Please advise.
			<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)
	Note: This user has an extensive history of what I consider disruptive editing, for which I will probably create a separate posting eventually. This posting is specifically for his disruption of the RSN discussion. ] (]) 06:32, 15 March 2015 (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)
			::], 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===
	:Further information: we had a brief, unproductive exchange about this ]; also Formerly 98 has a ] on his user page in which he (mistakenly) claims that this behavior is justified by ]. ] (]) 07:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			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 ].
	* '''Boomerang'''. The removed content ''is'' a personal attack, and has no business being at RS/N. It's your putting it there (not its removal) that is disruptive. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 07:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*: I contend that my comment was directly relevant to the discussion. Users had expressed confusion over why such an obvious issue was being brought up. I cited a specific example of disruptive editing to clarify why this was being discussed -- i.e. we have a problem editor on our hands, this user is is willfully misinterpreting the policy to support his disruptive edits, how can we explain to him that what he is doing is inappropriate? ] (]) 08:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::RSN is '''not''' the place for discussing "problem editors". ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 08:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Hmm, fair enough. Sounds like the best thing to do would be to remove portions of content regarding Formerly98's conduct and rephrase the comment to focus on the portion relevant to the discussion, to wit: "This discussion is getting rather abstract, but in practice the answer is usually obvious, as in this example: ". ] (]) 16:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::What I would like from you is a discussion of content and sources. Content disagreements can usually be handled without making assumptions about other editors motivations. If we don't agree, we can do an Rfc, and of course will both be bound by the opinions of the overall community.
	:::::I am as concerned by your editing style as you are by mine, but that is neither here nor there, and questioning your motives will not help us reach consensus. Let's debate the sources and their interpretation on the article Talk pages, and do an RFc if we cannot agree. And lets keep the discussion on the Reliable sources page limited to whether sources are reliable. If either one of us violates 3RR, vandalizes pages, or calls the other a "ninny", that is suitable material for ANI.
	:::::If we can agree to work together on this basis, I think we can get along and not waste our time battling it out here. ] (]) 16:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Ok, {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard|label=this diff|diff=651526671|oldid=651525816}} removed the accusations of user misconduct, leaving only the facts and my position on the question at hand. ] (]) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Thank you. I appreciate the gesture of goodwill and look forward to working with you to address our differences. I would also like to apologize for my comments on the Criticism of Coca Cola Talk page, which were unnecessarily provocative and which undoubtedly contributed to this conflict. I have struck the same. ] (]) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			On Draft:Please Stop Drinking/Draft:Please Quit Drinking.
	*'''Comment''' I am privy to this discussion thread on the noticeboard. On the one hand, I am slightly dismayed that the IP editor feels the need to go straight to AN/I with this. It seems like something that could be resolved with a bit of discussion. The IP editor must know that they aren't coming here with clean hands: the material which they posted (and which Formerly 98 removed) assumes bad faith on the part of ] and accuses him of "clear deliberately disruptive editing" in a case that is not clear at all. Why was that obviously disruptive editing? There are many reasons why material might be culled from articles. Furthermore, I do not see how that was even relevant to the discussion on the RSN. The fact that the IP editor feels so certain that s/he is correct and that administrator intervention may be needed for ''that issue'', too, shows, in my opinion, an unwillingness to engage in the normal dispute resolution mechanisms on Wiki before jumping to the AN/I noticeboard. Did you even attempt to discuss those other edits with ]?
	:On the other hand, it is arguable if these are clear-cut "personal attacks" which would entitle Formerly 98 to summarily remove them himself -- in their entirety -- per ] There is an actual point in those comments about Formerly 98's editing history (however possibly irrelevant or badly stated). There is a good argument to be made that this was really an ]. Uncivil comments are different from personal attacks, and according to ]: "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording . . . ''It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment.''" (Emphasis added.) Even if we assume that it was a personal attack and not merely an uncivil comment, I don't see why Formerly 98 would remove the entire text himself (despite its possible irrelevance) instead of only the phrases which directly accuse him of bad faith. So, possibly some room for apology on both sides. ] (]) 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			* ] – @] created Draft:Please Stop Drinking pointing to ].
	'''Response by Formerly 98''' -
			* ] – @] created Draft:Please Quit Drinking pointing to the same mainspace.
	* I don't believe I removed material other than the personal attack. If I did so, I apologize for having done so. It was my intent to remove the ] violation only
			* ] – Aidillia converted their draft to a skeleton outline.
	* On the other hand, the removal of personal attacks is justified by ], which states in its very first paragraph:
			* ] – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft.
	::"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. '''Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.''' Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."
			* ] – D.18th reverted the changes stating "{{tq|This is the literal translation of the Korean title}}".
	* If 67 disagrees with my edits, I am more than happy to discuss these on the relevant Talk page, and to cooperate in an RFC if we are unable to come to agreement. What seems unacceptable to me is that every disagreement should immediately be met with unsupported allegations and personal attacks.
			* ] – 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.
	* I respectfully request that this discussion be closed immediately with a warning to 67 to abide by ] and ]. Respect and civility are not merely guidelines, but policy. They are part of the 5 pillars of Misplaced Pages. I've been a contributor here for over a year, working in good faith to improve the content of the encyclopedia and trying to follow the rules. I have never been blocked or even warned. I deserve to be allowed to edit in peace without personal attacks.
			* ] – Aidillia cut-paste the content (]) from their draft to D.18th's draft.
	] (]) 09:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			* ] – Aidillia moved D.18th's draft to ].
			* ] – Aidillia moved their draft to Draft:Please Stop Drinking.
			On Draft:Typhoon Company/Draft:Typhoon Boss
	:These were neither uncivil comments nor personal attacks. Rather, the IP violated AGF quite blatantly. This was bad, of course, but it wasn't a proper basis for removal of their comments. Their comments should be restored and Formerly98 should be warned not to edit other editor's comments in these types of circumstances. The IP should be warned not to jump to easy conclusions about their fellow editors' motivations. --] (]) 10:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			* ] – D.18th created Draft:Typhoon Company pointing to ].
	:: I am happy to discuss my behavior with the community and I respect and appreciate Dr. Fleishman's opinion in particular. However,
			* ] – Aidillia created Draft:Typhoon Boss with content of "{{tq|Typhoon Boss}}".
	::* ] defines personal attacks as including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."
			* ] – Aidillia redirected D.18th's draft to their draft.
	::* 67's accusation was a serious one: "t's clear that the user is deliberately misinterpreting this and other policies in order to remove criticism from corporate articles." He presented no evidence in support of this accusation other than diffs of some edits he disagreed with. Yes, this was a presentation of evidence, but not of serious evidence. At some point the point needs to be made that "disagrees with me" is not evidence of COI or ill intent, and that making serious accusations based on "he disagreed with me" arguments is not acceptable.
			* ] – D.18th reverted Aidillia changes.
	::* Even accepting Dr. F's premise that this was a ] violation and not a ] violation, it is difficult to understand why he thinks it should be restored. (67 has already restored it). In either case it is a violation and at a minimum, 67 should be asked to strike
			* ] – Aidillia reverted D.18th changes.
	::I am trying my best to deal with a difficult situation in a way that is respectful of the rules and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. There is a cadre of editors here with whom I have frequent content disputes, who respond to every difference of opinion with accusations of COI and bad faith editing. I have not responded in kind. . I request that the decision at the ANI board be respected and that I be allowed to edit without continuously being required to address the same unsupported allegations over and over again.
			* ] – Aidillia redirect their draft to D.18th's draft.
	::Respectfully, ] (]) 12:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			* ] – Aidillia cut-paste the content (]) from their draft to D.18th's draft.
	::: You'll note that I did present evidence for the accusation in the form of a diff, etc. It seems that the real problem is that I chose the wrong forum to raise my concerns. I would be glad to correct this in the RSN discussion per my reply to Alexbrn, above, and raise my conduct concerns elsewhere at a later time.
			* ] – D.18th overwrited the cut-paste content from their draft.
	::: Also, I hope it is not the policy of Misplaced Pages administrators to grant any user a "free pass" for future scrutiny of their behavior. It would seem like the frequent complaints about Formerly 98's behavior indicate if anything a need for ''greater'', not lesser, oversight. ] (]) 16:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			* ] – Aidillia added external link with edit summary of "{{tq|Even HanCinema link also said it is Typhoon Boss}}".
	::::As I noted above, I am as concerned about your editing style as you are about mine, but have not made any assumptions or accusations regarding what motivates you. You are unhappy with my edits, but this is a content dispute which I believe can be handled by good faith negotiations, and if necessary, and RFC or two. There are good reasons for the rules ] and ], as comments about the editor rather than debating content and sources is usually energy intensive and non-productive. I respectfully request that you strike your comments on the reliable sources board (which I have not re-reverted) and discuss specific concerns on the Talk pages of the articles in question. It is very difficult for me to provide a specific response to a broad accusation such as "Formerly 98 is a POV editor who is misusing the sourcing rules". thanks ] (]) 17:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			* ] – Aidillia added redirect templates to their draft with edit summary of "{{tq|sopspspwpwppwpwpwpwppwpwpeppeowoow}}".
	::::*'''Comment''' Formerly98, the ANI concluded that no action was necessary ''at the time''. That is not a statement about your future editing, or about your history, but only about the specific diffs brought to the noticeboard. There exists no policy to support your request that you "be allowed to edit without continuously being required to address the same unsupported allegations over and over again" based on a past ANI. No one is immune from scrutiny. To attain NPOV takes a village. Welcome the feedback - this is fodder for a more well-rounded editor. No human is perfectly neutral. You shared with me (on Gandy's talk page) that you are very closely connected to the pharmaceutical industry; it seems possible that you may have a blind spot regarding your own POV in that area. As I stated previously, your edits could be described as nothing short of "spindoctoring on steroids". I've never seen anything like it since I've been here. I see why it would be desirable, but I highly doubt that you will be 'left alone' unless a more neutral editing style is attained (and perhaps things have changed, I am referring to edits in May/June 2014). Thank you for hearing me out. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 06:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			'''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::: P, I think the problem here is that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Your suggestions that
	::::::* That my editing style is not "neutral"
	::::::* That my that edits could be described as nothing less than "spin doctoring on steroids"
	::::::* That I have a "blind spot regarding my own biases
	::::::Are all based in your implicit definition of your own POV as "neutral" and assumption that the "bias" of others can be measured by the extent to which their point of view differs from your own. I'm sure that if you think about it, you will recognize how indefensible such a definition is. I am also sure that upon further reflection, you will understand how inappropriate it is to attempt to use the ANI process to deal with differences of opinion. Rather we discuss, and compromise on the article Talk page. There are no Thought Crimes at Misplaced Pages. Thanks, ] (]) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (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.
	::::::::. You should probably be editing articles outside of this realm so that your contributions are more neutral. A strong passion either way can make NPOV impossible. I am not surprised that I continue to see you at this noticeboard. Your "blind spot" is evident with every response you make. It's worrisome. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 17:35, 16 March 2015 (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)
			::Both Aidillia and D18 upload a new copy of any file I upload, for no good reason. 👎 ] (]) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::Not that it should actually matter, but I haven't worked for a pharmaceutical company for close to a decade. In any case it would only be a COI if I wrote about a current employer. Following your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, we would not allow doctors to write about surgical procedures or the diagnosis of illness. Expertise is not the same thing as COI.
			:::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)
	:::::::::Please think about what I said. Disagreeing with your POV is not evidence of COI or "biased editing". It is instead a sign of the diversity that makes Misplaced Pages effective. ] (]) 19:22, 16 March 2015 (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)
	== Legal threat at ] ==
			*::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)
	{{archive top|The legal threat was retracted. I'm closing this thread before the bickering gets further out of hand. Certain users would do well to read ] and ]. Non-admin closure. ] ] 17:17, 15 March 2015 (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)
	I had a content dispute with this editor but I do not think that the legal threat posted on their talk page by {{U|Wakanebe Wizard}} is appropriate. ] ] 07:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Also worthy of note is that {{U|Shhhhwwww!!}} has posted a retirement notice. ] ] 07:16, 15 March 2015 (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)
	::Oh, please, I am not threatening him/her but I'm just leave some note to remind him/her to become more cautious of his/her disruptive editing. ] (]) 07:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			* Support IBAN and indef ban of both editors from filespace to avoid continued disruption there. ] (]/]) 21:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::You wrote "I will forgive you at this time but I will not hesitate to take any legal actions on you in the near future if you continue to doing any WP:DISRUPTIVE editing . . ." which reads as a legal threat to me. I encourage you to withdraw the threat, {{U|Wakanebe Wizard}}. It isn't allowed. ] ] 07:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Alright, I will retract that words. Apologise to you as well to the editor. I'm actually never intend to be involved in any dispute with other editors. Once again, forgive me. ] (]) 07:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Wakanebe Wizard has blanked the comment in question, with my thanks. ] ] 07:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Whilst we're discussing Wizard can someone strip his rollback considering the edit warring hes involved in? ] (]) 11:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Better yet can we agree on a consensus to community ban Wizard entirely for threatening legal action, biting a newbie and abusing his tools<s> and being a jerk</s>? ] (]) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Who are you? A sockpuppet of ]? Biting a newbie? ? And who are you to calling someone a "jerk"? This is more like a ] to me. ] (]) 12:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: ], since the problem has been remedied, please supply some diffs that back up your proposal to take further action. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::: Wakanebe Wizard I was calling you a jerk but am sorry I offended you and take it back. Im not a sockpuppet of ] but I do stand by my allegation you were biting a newcomer and considering you did the same albeit less severely to me I request that you do not contact me again. In return I will do the same. ] (]) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: , and are enough in my opinion to justify further action. ] (]) 14:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::: Hah? ? You are not just lying to me but to the whole Misplaced Pages communities. Like people said "What goes around comes around". I trust with that ]. ] (]) 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Talk page harassment by ] ==
	{{archive top|status=closed|result=After some encouraging advice on their Talk page, this seems to be revolved. {{nac}} --] (]) 12:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	] is continuing to harass me on my talk page. She has not only refused to respect my formal request that she does not make any direct contact with me in this way but she has also restored comments she made which I had already removed. This is completely unacceptable and I request that appropriate action be taken. Her behaviour is both harassment and stalking. Thank you. ] (]) 12:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:] is now continuing her pattern of seeking support from other editors on their talk pages and also making derogatory comments about editors she has some bee in her bonnet about. All of this needs to stop. ] (]) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: ], please provide some diffs that support your claims so admins will not have to search for them. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::I do not know how to create diffs. The evidence is easily found in Mabelina's recent editing history and on my talk page. ] (]) 12:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I left a reminder at ]'s talk page. Perhaps this is all that is needed. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::], it's very simple, a diff is just a link to an edit that you find problematic. Go to the page history to find the edit in question and then the diff would look like <nowiki></nowiki>. See ] for more guidance. But perhaps ]'s message will be sufficient. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Continued ignorance of policies/guidelines by ] ==
	Before I begin, I must admit that I have not handled this in the best of ways, and would not be surprised if a partial ] occurs and I end up with a block for some of ].
	Simply put, MaranoFan is a ] and a ]. I'm sure several editors will agree with me that this editor has been stirring up a lot of unnecessary drama at various locations since late last year. That may sound harsh, but I (and others) have made many attempts to assume good faith, but there comes a point when someone simply becomes too stubborn to collaborate with. I could list a number of problems with his/her editing, but I'll save everyone the time and just get to the main issue at hand:
	:'''Willful ignorance of policies and guidelines,''' mainly in regards to non-free file uploads. A month ago, ] for repeated problematic uploads – specifically, replacing JPGs with PNGs when there is no difference in the files beyond a different format and a larger file size, and not tagging orphaned files for deletion, despite multiple warnings from other editors. These warnings were typically responded to by ].
	:Eventually, MaranoFan stopped trying to fight the block and ], without demonstrating an understanding of what led to this block. Now that they are returning to similar behavior (uploading non-free album covers at an arbitrary size of 300x300 px, even if this ] – violating ] – or ], or both), it's apparent they're just going to continue on with their ways until they end up blocked again.
	:Not that this applies exclusively to file uploads. ], s/he restores an unhelpful acronym dab for a subject not known by its acronym after being made aware of ]. As noted, attempts to discuss on their talk page are usually ].
	My recommended course of action, since this user is clearly going to ignore temporary blocks and ] without regards to policies and guidelines, is to indefinitely block him/her until s/he agrees to a ] from non-free files (both uploading them and altering their use in articles). –''''']''''' (] / ]) 15:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Admins, see discussion at ] which was brought to my page in the last 24 hours. I've sent the discussion here because I'm not looking to get heavily involved in this on-going drama. I hope others are willing to look into this and take action. I think all three users (Chasewc91, MaranoFan, and Winkelvi) are disrupting the project with edit wars and personal attack-laced debates across multiple pages and action must be taken to prevent further disruption. ] (]) 15:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Please remember that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I have acknowledged that some of my recent behavior (namely, the warring with MF) was in the wrong, and I have also stopped it. I brought this here to sort this out so that hopefully no further action will be necessary (including for MF, should s/he properly address the problematic behavior). At the moment, I do not see how MF's continued ignorance of P&G can be prevented without a block. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 16:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Non admin comment: I would strongly suggest an interaction ban between all three users involved (MF, Wink, and Chase). They clearly don't want to play nice with each other. ] 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::First of all, the problem is between myself/MF and WV/MF – WV and I have no problems with one another. Second of all, the problems I have with MF (I cannot speak for WV) stem from MF's inability to accept criticism of their edits or abide to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Anytime any editor has a problem with MF's edits, s/he is quick to cry "bully!" and announce bans from their talk page. Imposing interaction bans for attempting to correct MF's errors is going to send us all down a slippery slope where MF will exaggerate any conflict with any user, which will in turn require interaction bans for anyone who doesn't edit to his/her liking if we're going to follow such a precedent. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Oppose IB proposed by Calidum. The facts show otherwise. ] (]) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Support interaction ban between Chasewc91 and MaranoFan as well as ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. Nothing to warrant a ban between Winkelvi and Chasewc91, though. We don't need anymore arguments between them. ] (] / ])</b> 20:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I oppose your proposed IB per ]. When one looks at the history in depth, the problem is MaranoFan, not these other editors. I admit this has not been easy to see, considering that I supported your proposal in the recent past. However, it has become clear over time that MaranoFan isn't willing to conform to what's expected of him. ] (]) 21:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you, Viriditas. While I admittedly have not handled my own behavior in the best way in my interactions with MF, the root problem is their inability to edit according to guidelines. To restrict me and WV from cleaning up after MF when s/he edits contrary to P&G would harm, not help, the encyclopedia. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Fine, I'll withdraw my initial idea and limit it to a interaction ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. ] 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Is that necessary? Why can't we just deal with the problem under discussion? I don't see how Winkelvi has contributed to the current situation. The solution here does not involve any kind of IB, so I wish other editors would stop bringing that up. I think this is a case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". No hammer is required here. MaranoFan has a problem that does not involve anyone else. ] (]) 01:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes, it is. If you think more needs to be done sanction MaranoFan, that's fine. But that doesn't excuse Winkelvi for the actions he's taken. is just one example. ] 03:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Given that you participated in the RfC on the talk page and voted in favor of MaranoFan's image choice (and against Winkelvi), as well as participating in a very minor "hatting" war on the talk page, you may not be the most neutral party here. In other words, you are ''involved'' in a content dispute with Winkelvi, and may be proposing this IB to gain an upper hand. I don't think Winkelvi should edit war, and I believe he should try to hold himself to 1RR, but that has little to do with the problem under discussion. ] (]) 03:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{unindent}} Glad you think so highly of me. I previously backed Winkelvi when he filed an ] and defended him in a related thread . ]
	*'''Comment''' As {{U|Chasewc91}} pointed out at the beginning of the AN/I and {{U|Viriditas}} also noted, MaranoFan has a definite problem working with other editors and following guidelines and policies. None of us are perfect, but I think a quick once-over of the history of MFs edits, edit wars, talk-page postings (on others' userspace as well as his own), and various other questionable actions (listed above by Chasewc91) gives a complete picture: something needs to be done about his attitude and approach. He just came off a month-long block and is already back at AN/I? That's the sign of something more than the usual "doesn't understand Misplaced Pages", in my opinion. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 03:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Non-admin comment''': {{ec}} There are a lot of things that I noticed when going through this discussion. I realised that MaranoFan disliked people calling him/her "MF", but it seems like nobody gives a damn about that here. MaranoFan tend to call just anyone a "bully" and used the term "]" incorrectly. Replacing JPEG files with PNG files are common, but the users usually change the file to 300px (if it can be) and upload the new one with a lower file size, before removing the old one and replacing it at the article. This one misconception is that users tend to use the {{t1|db-f1}} template, but they are just supposed to tag the original JPEG file as orphaned. I can name you editors who do that, including me, but I will just not waste time. I think the interaction ban is a great idea, as I do not think Chase would want to meet with this editor anymore. MaranoFan is a really troublemaker editor. S/he tells people to "assume good faith" when s/he him/herself does not do that, and even calling Chase's action as "vandalism". Such hypocritical acts cannot be tolerated, regardless of gender, religion or size. However, Chase might really have been wikihounding MaranoFan too, or it just turned up to be pure coincidences that Chase just kept bumping into MaranoFan. MaranoFan also asked at my talk page, regarding on whether a website is a reliable source. This shows that the user might be gradually improving on his/her demeanour, which serves as great news for us. Please ping me if any of you replied to this comment. Thanks, ] (] | ] | ]) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Note: MaranoFan is on a ] through April 10, likely to "lay low" and avoid sanctions as a result of this ANI. I do not see how s/he will change their ways upon return, thus I still think a preventative block / topic ban would be helpful. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 17:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:*Agreed. We are just going to be back here in a month. If there's no consensus for a block, which I would support, then what about preventing the problem, such as a ban on image uploads and image editing? ] (]) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I'm not a supporter of draconian solutions such as topic or interaction-type bans, but I think in this case -- since the editor has apparently bolted, isn't taking part in this discussion, and refuses to change his behavior -- it's about all that can happen. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 00:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	*MaranoFan has been a problem editor for a long time, that much is clear. Interaction bans are typically more trouble than they're worth. As far as I'm concerned (since we don't do "preventative" blocks) one could decide if MaranoFan should be blocked indefinitely for a battleground attitude and for, frankly, lacking the competence required to edit here. But if they're really on some sort of a break right now (first time I heard of that--{{U|Bishzilla}}, a javascript pocket?), what's the point of it? Or did this break start while this was going on? ] (]) 04:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::{{U|Drmies}}, the "break" started not long after this report was filed. Which is interesting to me, because I thought it strange he was able to come up with the script so quickly. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 05:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	== Please help me how to protect myself from INSULTS of others users while editing ==
	{{archive top|Appears to be a simple misunderstanding, rest of this can be resolved elsewhere. {{U|Quinto Simmaco}} with the best of respect, I hope to never come across you here again either :P ] (]) 12:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	Respected Sir, I am very much new in this[REDACTED] , First I have done a page of my favourite author mr. ] with other members help, and they were so helping and kind to me that I got inspiration to write the second topic of my favourite book, ] as I have bought the book through online, so I gave the link to other readers to get the book easily, there was no other bad intentions of mine. And the entire thing was written by me only, But Sir, I got mail from one of other member who was taken initiative to edit the materials, He/She wrote me as harsh as possible that my parents also never speak to me that much of rudeness. His[REDACTED] id is: Quinto Simmaco , And he attacked me directly by accusing as publisher or author, secondly, he/she insulted me that I might have copied the whole writings from the back cover of the book , Without reading the book how he could be insulting me like this ?
	I wrote him/her that entire writing was mine only, and I hardly know the author of the book... I requested you to help me in writings not to insult me like this, though I thanked him/her for such a ruthless behaviour.
	Then he/her deleted all his/her conversations from talk page immediately.
	I am requesting you to eye on and take a step against these kind of harmful[REDACTED] users, for them We the newer users can get psychological problems.
	Thank You
	Sincerely Yours,
	Gargi
	Gargi 17:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Are you asking to block e-mail access from other users? If so, you can disable your e-mail in your preferences. ] (]) 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I think he's referring to . Does that seem like an attempt to make someone ] themselves or am I mistaken? Also, no need to be so formal here, my good sir. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 24 Adar 5775 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::I see he means a talk page message, my dear sir.<p>Anyway, removing talk page posts is allowed per talk page guidelines, but outing a Misplaced Pages editor requires administrator or oversight revision suppression. The talk page post seems to be a ] warning, since uploading an image of the book's cover to Commons under the rationale "own work" is only applicable if the author and this editor are one and the same. Since {{u|Choudhury.gargi}} does not claim to be the author, that assumption is mistaken and the image on Commons should be immediately deleted as a copyright violation. ] (]) 17:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Ha, sorry, the no need to be formal was directed at the OP, probably should have used proper indentation. I've informed Quinto on his talk page. I think that going by AGF, the putting it as his own work was an accident and would be incorrect anyway as it would be the publisher's copyright for the actual book cover. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 24 Adar 5775 17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::The image is no longer on the Commons; it's here, and it's now appropriately tagged for fair use. -- ] (]) 17:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{ping|Choudhury.gargi}}: Please accept our apologies for the behaviour that you found as insulting. Obviously there's some cultural differences here that are at least partially responsible for the problem. -- ] (]) 18:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	: I just received the notice, so apologies for my lateness here. I had asked if the user was either the author or someone working for him, due to the overly promotional material (including the earlier version of the article where the only two citations were links to buy the book), his edit history, and that the author's photo is apparently one taken or owned by him as per the usage rights on the Commons. I understand that editors with a COI are only encouraged that they disclose their identity (and not required), unless they are a paid editor. Given the user's possible attempt to sell the book prior on the article, the heavy promotion, etc... I was concerned that aside from COI or paid editorship, there may also be a copyvio. I could have been more diplomatic, and assumed good faith, but at that point, I thought there were too many issues. You may look at my response to the user at the take page, and all relevant edit histories. I asked for the advice of two far more experienced editors (Huon and Lixxx) as to how to proceed to avoid any missteps. I asked them to take over the situation. I'm unfamiliar with copyvio and BLP, so I wanted to step back. MY only interest was solving these potential issues, but given their complexity, it's a bit beyond me. ] (]) 18:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: I have checked for copy vio, and the current revision is fine. Revision 651477187 has some unattributed copying from ''The Sunday Indian'', so I have done some rev-deletion. The earlier version of the article before Huon's re-write was indeed overly promotional. -- ] (]) 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: I saw that Diannaa. Thank you. :) As you can see in my reply to the editor (on my talk page), I explained who I was, what my intentions were when asking him about the possible issues, and I apologised for any possible misunderstanding. And that I was stepping back. I really do think this may have been a misunderstanding either cuturally and/or about attempts to have the article conform to policy. Huon,, as you indicated, has apparently rewritten the article to comply with Misplaced Pages standards and avoid copyvio; something which I had offered to do myself. Please, if I did something wrong, let me know. I think I was civil, and I know I'm allowed to ask if there is a conflict of interest or paid editorship... Though in the former case, they're not required to answer. As I said, I apologised for any perceived "insult", as the editor claimed. And I washed my hands of it. I was surprised to see my name appear here. I spend most of my time here on Misplaced Pages welcoming new users and helping them to learn to edit (especially as a helper on irc), and had never encountered a possible copyvio or BLP issue (I didn't even check the article, but an uninvolved editor told me there were issues there). I'm happy to distance myself from this, and even apologise again for any misunderstanding. But I'd also prefer to avoid any missteps, though I tried to do so here in this case. So please, let me know how I can approach such a situation in the future. I was told that if talking to the user failed, I could report it to COIN or contact an admin, which was my first inclination. ] (]) 18:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: I have viewed / repaired a large number of Indian articles in the course of my copy vio work, and one thing I have noticed is that ]. Spend some time reading the articles and sources, and you will see what I mean. Even if they are not a paid editor, new editors from India will have trouble adapting to our environment and grasping the concept of how to write a neutrally-worded article, because of the difference in the way even reliable top-tier newspapers are worded. There's also some unexpected differences in the way people speak to each other, what is insulting and what is not. -- ] (]) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Easy to understand given how diverse India is. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 24 Adar 5775 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I actually know this quite well. Heh. I'm usually the "third shift" helper in irc, due to my insomnia. In the early hours of the morning, of course, it's actually daytime there due to the time differential. So the vast majority of the people I help in irc, and those who post help requests on their users pages, are Indian or Pakistani. Mostly organisations and CEOs trying to promote themselves; apparently, English Misplaced Pages is thought a bit of as a directory for who and/or what has "arrived". Notability and reliable sources are almost always the issue at stake. A small minority of them do meet the criteria. Of course, I'm willing to help any and all, and try to encourage them to stick around and contribute constructively, even if I know their article doesn't have the independent, secondary sources to support inclusion. Perhaps I should have just tried to be more clear and concise, or bluelinked more of the relevant policies into what I was saying... Honestly, AN/I seems like a bit of a scary place. Nice as all of you are, I'd rather not be back here again. But I'd still like to try to make sure the articles are up to snuff. I guess it's necessarily a precarious proposition? ] (]) 18:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I don't have the data to back this up but I think that providing a commercial external link is a common mistake for new editors and they do not view it as promotional so much as directing interested readers to where they can purchase a copy of the work or find more information at a fansite. It's an opportunity to educate them, I think. I wouldn't jump the judgment that there is some deep COI, just a misunderstanding that in their attempt to be "helpful", it is not appropriate in this context. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::I see. There was some confusion, mainly due to differences in communication, because the OP was from India and most of the rest of us are not. ] (]) 22:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:: It ''might'' be a bit more than that. I was ready to simply chalk it up to that (despite some lingering but moot suspicions), but... Someone who saw this brought this to my attention: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/zIDKGyYPSQU/JH8pw7bvWL8J … and this: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/webmasters/o9e_FvSuUw4 What started me down this rabbit hole in the first place was in part the suspicion that the user took the author's picture on the article about the author (and thus knew them), and was intentionally trying to promote sales of the book. But as I said, this is beyond my ken, and I'm happy to wash my hands of this. I figure you guys know how to follow this sort of labyrinth, if there's anything to it, and you were so inclined. But I'd be remiss if there was actually something, and I didn't bring it to your attention. ] (]) 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for digging that up. I have placed a COI template on his user talk. I would not be surprised if he abandons the account. We shall see -- ] (]) 00:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::No problem. Thank you for following up on it. You all enjoy your evening (or day, as it were). ] (]) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
	== Disruptive editing by IP 189.7.227.232 ==
	{{atop|Sent to ]. ] (])(]) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	The IP has been persistently adding unsourced (and often questionable) information to several gang articles. IP has been reverted by multiple editors and been given several warnings. This diff is a good example . IP hasn't responded to a single warning, not left a single edit summary. Closest thing to a response was an attempt to vandalize my user page ] (]) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	: Links: {{IPuser|189.7.227.232}} --] (]) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Thrown to ] for whats usually a quicker response to pure vandalism. ] (])(]) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
	== ] ==		==User talk:Juice and ye 999==
	{{atop|Blocked and Talk page revoked. ] (])(]) 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}		{{atop|1=TPA-b-gon applied. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|Juice and ye 999}}
	Obviously a personal attack only account. ] may also apply. --] (]) 19:48, 15 March 2015 (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)
	:I have removed his talk page access as he was plainly abusing it after being blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			:{{done}} ] (]) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
	== 109.151.127.186 ==		== 37.47.76.95 - personal attacks ==
	{{archivetop|1=IP blocked for 31 hours by {{u|Davewild}}. {{nac}} '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 21:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}}		{{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 recently reverted some edits to ] that appeared to be vandalism— like "Heavenly Puss" to "Pussy PUSSY", etc.
	I also deleted some sections listing unsourced trivia and catchphrases and removed some unsupported fields from one of the infoboxes {{IP|109.151.127.186}} (who I don't think made the original questionable changes) has been blindly reverting these edits, giving me "warnings" about "removeing good text," and deleting any comments I make on their talk page. Would someone care to intervene? ] (]) 20:06, 15 March 2015 (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)
	trivialist is doing a bad job this is uncalled for lets just forget the whole thing. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	I not a admin so I can,t block this ip but in my view I say the ip needs blocking trivialist is being bullyed by this ip. does anyone back up what I think?.
	--] (]) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{userlinks|Mr. Accuracy Specialist}}<br>
	:{{nonadmin}}The IP is a bit of a funny vandal, but he's still a vandal, unfortunately. Someone should make him go poof. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 24 Adar 5775 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I have blocked them for 31 hours for vandalism, not here to sensibly contribute. ] (]) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{reply to|Iniced}}: I didn't feel particularly bullied, but thanks for your concern. :) ] (]) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Err, we may need help on his talk page.... <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Per ] I don't see why they can't blank the talk page, though the personal attack in the edit summary was uncalled for. ] (]) 20:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Good point, it just says that they cannot remove declined unblock requests. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Ah, really? Sorry, had no idea... I'll leave it be. The guard kitten seems to have scared him off though. Must be an ]. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 24 Adar 5775 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::: sorry <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Better keep an eye on him when the block expires though. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::*sadface* Ah darn. Oh well, since actually trolling him is a wiki-no-no, I guess that as you said, we'll have to keep an eye on this fellow. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 24 Adar 5775 21:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			This week-old account has a talk page filled with warnings (mostly deleted). Some of the warnings include:
	{{archivebottom}}
			* ] warning about using AI chatbot.
			* Me warning .
			Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like:
	== Interaction ban request ==
			*.
			*.
			*.
			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 an IBAN against {{u|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} last year and the discussion was archived without anything actually being accomplished; still, I was pretty much able to stay away from him since then. But now, with comments that don't even make sense. ("Personally directed innuendo"? What?) And it's funny how he thinks he can but then think it's okay to ] me in other forums. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:10, 16 March 2015 (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)
	::Respectfully,
			: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: ], ], ].
	::*The IBan discussion was 11 months & 11 days ago,
			: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:
	::*An editor can ban another editor from their talk page, and,
			:* 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.
	::*The you provided is not, by itself, evidence of ].
			:** Mr. Accuracy Specialist is created five hours later, then continues the same pattern of making dozens of edits in short bursts.
	::If you have recent evidence showing hounding, please provide diffs. Otherwise, it does seem to be a content dispute. Regards, ] (]) 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:* After a hundred minor edits (to build credibility?), Mr. Accuracy Specialist also starts to edit the same articles related to GMA Pictures.
	:::I am not disputing when the original IBAN discussion took place, nor am I disputing banning someone from a user talk page (I have done that myself, but only in rare occasions; plus, when I do that, I certainly have no interest in further conversing with the user elsewhere). And true, the diff taken by itself may not look like hounding on the surface, but in conjunction with the other diffs I posted, it ''is''. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 04:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:**
			:** On ] the two accounts have made identical changes: first ], then ].
			:** On ] the two accounts have made large, partly unreferenced additions: ], then ].
			:Since January 19 there's been no overlap, which is why I'm not confident about the connection. ] (]) 20:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I just noticed {{IPuser|139.135.241.10}} has also made a dozen edits to ] with edit summaries very similar to 202.57.44.130. For example, the same threats: ] vs. ].
			::See also the , where there is lots of overlap. ] (]) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::To be fair, "stops editing as an IP and makes an account" isn't sockpuppetry, it's what we ideally ''want'' editors to do. And IPs are dynamic, so it's not surprising two diffferent IPs are the same user.- ] <sub>]</sub> 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::My comment is the type of ] remark that I hope contains a core of truth. Any editor who voluntarily chooses a boastful, arrogant username such as {{u|Mr. Accuracy Specialist}} ought to be held to an exceptionally high standard of conduct starting with their very first edit. ] (]) 04:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	== User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD (again) ==		== System gaming by NandivadaHungama ==
			{{atop|1=No ECR for you. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	{{archive top|status=user blocked|result=User indef blocked for ] by ]. {{nac}} --] (]) 01:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			I believe {{user2|NandivadaHungama}} is ] per ] by editing their user page 500 times and thus should have extended-confirmed rights removed.--''']'''<nowiki>|</nowiki>] 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	There has been a previous ANI discussion about User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD - it was effectively ended because they claimed to have retired. However, this user is now back, and their conduct doesn't seem to have improved.
			:{{done}}.--] (]) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:ThePurgatori ==
	He claims to have uncurated one of my edits , without giving reason for it. Doesn't look like it was actually uncurated either.<br>
	Attacks on ]: , , .<br>
	Strange replies on ]: , , , ,
			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.
	Given that the user admitted to abusing multiple accounts in the , I believe that they should be blocked. ] (]) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Note, the userpage Vanessa Shoshaj was an attack page (speedily deleted by {{U|RHaworth}}), including accusations of being a sex worker. These "reviews" were entirely inappropriate. This user is NOTHERE. Recommend indef block. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	: Links: {{Userlinks|SPIKE SPIKE BAD}} --] (]) 14:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I've revdelled part of the history of the ] talk page as continuing the allegations on the now deleted article ] and I suspect that this user might be SSB anyway. ] (]) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	: {{Nao}} An indef block definitely seems to be warranted here. This is certainly a ] case. --] (]) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	:I have blocked them indefinitely for persistently disruptive behaviour. ] (]) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			, ] 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 ].
	== ], sockpuppet of LTA ] ==
			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.
	is currently making a lot of low quality WW II related edits to ]. The edits include copyvio/close paraphrasing from this (and probably other sources). He is already under sockpuppet ] and CU has confirmed sock puppetry, but closing and blocking of the accounts has stalled pending further CU checks. ] (]) 13:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	: Links: {{Userlinks|Creambreek}} --] (]) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (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.
	== Frequently incompetent editor promotes himself to page maintainer ==
			* 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.
	{{archive top|Non-admin closure by OP, issue seems resolved, discussion seems off-topic ] (]) 21:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			* 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.
	{{user|Winkelvi}} proved to be a frequently incompetent editor on ], and worse, usually edit-warred first, Talk-paged second on matters that he clearly knew nothing about.
			* 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, .
	*He deleted biographical details on the grounds they were "trivia", when in fact they were significant details that Santmyer incorporated into her fiction in a major, unforgettable way.
	*He rewrote prose, changing the meaning into versions that went beyond the sources, or worse, contradicted the sources.
	*He even claimed to have never read the online linked-to NYT obituary&mdash;the utter bare minimum reading even the laziest of those claiming knowledge about HHS have read&mdash;as a not very plausible defense against plagiarism.
	These are all in ], and the Edit Summaries.
	I wish to emphasize he made many good edits along the way, removing puffery, finding the right words, and so on, but overall these were at the level of copy-editing skills, not expert knowledge on HHS or any of the sources. And worse, he preferred to revert/edit-war first, ask questions later over anything which ''he'' couldn't figure out its greater purpose, rather than ask first.
			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",
	There is also history. WV has the atrocious habit of mini-] editors who cross him, finding one (and only one) article and then locking on, just so he can Template their Talk page and more. So far as I can tell, that is WV's only interest in HHS. About two months ago, WV received his second edit-war ban, and more or less swore off of interacting with people he edit-warred with, at which point he stopped editing HHS. Now he has added his name to the maintained-by Template on ], in open contradiction to the documentation for ].
			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
	More precise links will be added upon request, but as usual, it's extremely boring.
			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.
	Incidentally, there has recently been a discussion on ] to delete this Template, just because of this sort of issue. ] (]) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (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)
	:The same sort of issue on ]. I it's a good thing he has taken charge of the article improvement, but it really does start to feel like ownership and then with an edit summary of ''"+"''. I think ] needs deleted honestly, unrelated to WV. Or maybe a rewording of some form. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			: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! :-(
	::] specifically rules out articles subject to POV-controversies. That could be broadened, like requiring consensus, but yes, WV has obnoxiously self-nominated himself in other articles for maintainance in the past. And yes, it does look like deletion is the way to go. ] (]) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			:{{re|ThePurgatori}} If you read this, please start communicating now! It's great that you want to work on those articles, but if you don't interact with other users, chances are you'll continue causing a mess! ] (]) 21:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Regarding my suggestion to roll back ], that already happened shortly before I wrote that comment, by {{u|ArkHyena}} (reverting 29 edits spanning about a month). ThePurgatori has since edited the article twice, although I checked that particular addition and it is not problematic, following the standard reference (Buie) we have specified. Either they got lucky, or they've noticed the complaints. ] (]) 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Anyway you can tl;dr this? ] (]/]) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::ThePurgatori continues to edit astronomy-related articles, and even though they've been warned that their edits are not constructive and against consensus, they remain unresponsive and continue to cause a mess. ] (]) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I am tagging {{u|Kwamikagami}}, who has been involved in the discussion at ], and who has just removed that category from a lot of articles. -- Maybe you have some insights into how to best approach this? ] (]) 22:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::First, let's splash a scary-looking warning template on their talk page. If they still don't engage, I'd give them a warning block of a few days to really get their attention, leaving them with the ability to respond on talk pages . Once/if they engage, maybe the problems can be resolved. ] (]) 22:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I went ahead and gave them ]. ] (]) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It should be noted that there is a major ongoing discussion at ]'s talk page over how to handle candidate dwarf planets ]. ThePurgatori has been directed to participate in the discussion by Nrco0e, though they have yet to participate. Specifics aside, it was agreed to state on ] that objects included were >700 km in diameter; soon after, ThePurgatori changed the statement to say ''600'' km with little explanation. It appears that ThePurgatori is intent on imposing a standard across astronomy articles that was not agreed upon by other users, despite several attempts at communicating with them. I am not sure what measures should be taken to resolve this, but this behavior is not constructive. ]] (it/its) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:In their edits to ] from today, they've not only changed the diameters without sufficient explanation (as already pointed out), but have also changed the object count in a strange way. The article's source (a combination of and ) lists 39 objects in that category. They are saying in the article lede that there are 38. Their list includes 40. This may be an honest mistake, but I am getting tired of trying to clean up behind them. We do require some ]. ] (]) 01:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The diameters in ] have also been changed in 3 edits since 16 January, without an edit summary (similarly to the case of the 2010 list already mentioned), and I cannot follow where their numbers come from. ] (]) 01:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I really don't want to beat a dead horse, but they have been blocked on the Spanish Misplaced Pages for sockpuppetry. Not sure how relevant that is for us. ] (]) 01:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have just reverted 3 edits by ThePurgatori from 24 January 2025, unexplained change of a diameter without edit summary. ] (]) 09:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== My evolution ===
	:::Feel free to comment at ]. Now this discussion should focus back on the editors behavior, and template discussion should happen over there. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			Since 10/01/2024, i have been getting ideas to add the Category:Possible dwarf planets to a high number of TNOs, even those like ] whose diameters are below 300 km, i accidentally do it, I'm very sorry.
	::::Is this a case of an editor wearing his disability like a badge and expecting special treatment? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			Adding the ones in Michael E. Brown list is now getting so much.
	:::::By which you mean ? I don't know, but this discussion reminds me of monster from a few weeks ago. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			I also have done additional unreferenced words into ], and ]:
	::::::Not "good with vagueries or ambiguities" but then violates one of the clearest rules in the book (]). Hmm okkk ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			In resonant trans-Neptunian object, i accidentally have make edits like putting ] into the resonance, which is unreferenced, the DES has secured that this objects orbit is not resonant.
	*'''Comment''': Do ''not'' discuss personal issues (at least not before the editor himself plays the relevant card). Really, it's disgusting and frankly irrelevant. ] (]) 19:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	**The editor has already played that card, with his user page essay, which reads like a pre-emptive excuse to rationalize anything the editor does wrong. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	***It reads like a heads-up. No more, no less. He has been known to misuse it&mdash;including a waste of bytes with me on ]&mdash;but it's still off the table. As ] advised WV in the previous pile-up we had here, keep your eye on the ball, not the players. ] (]) 20:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	****What do you call ? I recall a similar statement at the large AN/I discussion from January. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	*****I don't call it anything. It's not part of this instance until he makes it part of it. I'll also point out that he has ''not'' gone for more edit-warring on ] since I've posted here and notified him on his talk page. I'm willing to AGF and assume that he is now familiar with ] and before he was not, believing it to be a "howdy stranger" tag. I'll probably non-admin close this discussion, especially if it turns into a train wreck or if he acknowledges my guess is correct (which including a Thanks here or there). (As a hint, I've been studiously avoiding WV discussions no matter how tempting.) ] (]) 20:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	******{{small|Until now. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	{{archive bottom}}
			In List of possible dwarf planets, i accidentally have make edits without reference that is, adding ] to the main table of the likeliest dwarf planets topic, and adding some TNOs that are guesstimates by Michael E. Brown to the table which is only for TNOs with diameters published in scientific literature.
	== Disruptive editing by {{User5|Timothyhouse1}} ==
			I'm sorry, i will start making referenced edits and give an edit summary, please give me chances, don't sanction me ] (]) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	This user keeps posting false information in the ] pages and he did the same on the ] page several months, if not years ago. I'm absolutely certain they're the same person as both seem to love to edit/vandalize pages about Singapore stuff like transports and such. The false information include imaginary ports/remakes of games to console on imaginary release dates, all without sources. If you also take a look at his talk page you'll notice that it's full of people complaining about his edits, including myself.
			== Disruptive editor won't stop ==
	Sorry for how i've written the report but it's the very first one for me. I was redirected here by another editor after i posted it in the wrong section (for vandalism). All those commands are still too obscure for me. I just hope that you take severe actions against this person.] (]) 22:42, 16 March 2015 (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>
	:{{nonadmin}} You neglected to do something, IP:
	{{cquote|'''When you start a discussion about an editor, you <u>must</u> notify them on their user talk page.'''}}
	:, however. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 23:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Actually, something else is odd here, considering an IP's is an ANI thread. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 23:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	Thank you, like i said, i'm a noob at using Misplaced Pages for reporting people. I think he's not going to get the message, anyway. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*The IP makes a good revert , but I don't see any reason for an ANI thread. IP editor, you're not so new that you can't find your way to ANI immediately; what you should have found first is that editor's talk page. Now, if you can present some evidence of this age-old pattern of disruptive behavior, produce it--if you can't, well, look up ]. Thank you, ] (]) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	Yes, i'm not so "new", i've done small edits for years, but when it comes to report problems, i AM new. I did find the spammer's talk page, though. I am CERTAIN the guy from years ago was from Singapore, and the new guy is also from Singapore. Look here, it's the same nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Time_Crisis&diff=593233833&oldid=583781837 (search for "Remake" and "Soundtrack"), then search for the recent edits in the ] page. That guy is also blocked, under the same username, on other wikis. Sorry again for the trouble. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== User repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles ==
	{{User|Madvillain2009}} has been repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles. Even after I warned him not to add unsourced content () and some other users also tried to stop him from adding unsourced content to album articles or BLP articles (), he keeps adding unsourced material (). I'm not sure if he is the same person as {{User|Madvillain2010}} or {{User|Madvillain2012}}, but I believe it is time to seek administrator intervention for Madvillain2009's lack of understanding of ]. ] (]) 23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	== Editor on a reversion/spam spree ==
	Can some admin review the recent edits of {{ul|Gamera1123}}, who seems to be on a reversion/spam spree? Posting without attempting prior discussion with user, because the fast pace of edits may require a quick response. {{ping|Ohnoitsjamie}}. ] (]) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Note:] has blocked the user (don't know if they saw this report or not). The edits need to be reviewed to see if a mass-rollback is required. ] (]) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Temporary block applied: 48 hours while we figure out if this is a kind of sock of User:Factsearch (those edits looked eerily familiar!) or if there's something else going on, like someone just hating on {{U|Ohnoitsjamie}}. Factsearch didn't care for whales, nor did Gamera seem to care for energy companies and policy. Note that I rolled back a number of their edits but not all of them--I stopped before I got to the whales, I think. ] (]) 01:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	From what I can tell on their talk page, they were given a regarding their addition of external links which might have set this revert spree in motion. I've rolled back a handful of the reverts as well. ] 01:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Question is, how did this go on for so long without attracting attention by any of those vandal-fighting RC patrollers that have their automatic Twinkle weapons locked and loaded constantly? Don't they see someone reverting the edits of someone older than Methusalem without edit summary? {{U|Nakon}}, thanks--it may have been that Ohnoitsjamie saw and reverted. Anyway, I strongly urge {{U|Gamera1123}} to start talking (on their talk page): please explain what's going on. Thank you. ] (]) 01:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Maybe the account was compromised. ] (]) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::: I'm always suspicious when I see any user canvassing links to some sort of atlas/almanac/area code page. Apparently I struck a nerve when I reverted a few link additions from Gamera1123 that looked spammy. I highly doubt this is related to ] or Bignewsnetwork; it looks like they were just reverting all edits of mine where mine was the most recent. Given how ] and time-wasteful Gamera's edits have been, I think 48 hours should be extended to indef. <b>] ]</b> 02:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	== Collect ==
	{{archive top|Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and ] if the OP refuses to ] after that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	User {{u|Collect}} has been involved in a very lengthy conflict (going on for more than a month now) over the article ]. Recently, this dispute has spilled over into other articles as well, most notably spin-off list article and the . It's been a long, messy, and complex debate so I could write a novel here, but I'll try to keep this as concise as I can: if more context/evidence is needed I can produce it.
	'''Misrepresentation of Others' Position/Arguments/Actions:''' In edit on Jimmy Wale's talk page, about the , Collect recently stated that "the group pushing this" (by which he apparently myself, {{u|Ubikwit}}, {{u|MrX}}, and {{u|Jbhunley}}) had "brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being 'obstinate,'" and that "I got a block for standing on this." Both statements are falsehoods. I had made ''one'' post to NPOVN shortly after my first entry into the debate over the PNAC article. All of the other "drama board" posts about the article (that I'm aware of) have been created by Collect: see , , , , and . Collect was also the one who the report that resulted in his block, which was for edit warring, not for "taking a stand".
	He has also the same group of editors with supporting the creation of the list article. This is untrue in both and Mr. X's case, I'm not sure about Ubikwit. More importantly, however, Collect also charged all four of us with "preferring" this old version of the article, repeating that charge . This is a willful misrepresentation of all four editors edits and ideas:
	*My to the PNAC article characterized it as "a bit of a mess," and I have put into the article from its original state in the past few weeks, ''removing'' much of the content that Collect that Collect also opposed, but which he has now claimed that I support ''adding'' to the article. Collect knows this - since he me for my edits.
	*As Mr X has correctly , he had ''no'' role in creating the list article, and has never edited it. His involvement has been limited to his response to at BLP/N, providing and that he thought might be helpful.
	*JBH also to Collect's characterization of his position, and Collect's quoting him out of context without a ping or notification of any kind. JBH has also pointed out that Collect has compared the creation of the article to , and implying support for McCarthyism . Like me and Mr X, JBH also noted that his with the PNAC article took place nearly a month ''later'' than the version which Collect has claimed all four of us "prefer."
	*Ubikwit also that the list had been in the main PNAC article for years.
	All four of the editors that Collect misrepresented (without even informing us of the discussion) have asked him to retract his false/misleading statements and apologize. '''He has refused,''' responding with posts like , and .
	'''Other Incidents:''' The above is just the most recent event in the dispute over the PNAC article were I believe that Collect has acted in bad faith, and failed to listen to reason, or been uncivil. I could point to many other examples, such as on talk pages without informing involved parties, his practice of adding ''more'' of the content that he objects to in order to make a point: ( and and ) and his refusal to respond to or acknowledge arguments (or just simple questions) that are earnestly presented to him - some of which I detailed at length in over at BLP/N.
	'''Vague Aspersions:''' I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that while Collect rarely makes an ''outright'' accusation (he's very careful with his words), he has kept up a steady drumbeat of comments and edit summaries which backhandedly imply that his opponents are promoting anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, or McCarthy-style "guilt by association." Some examples: .
	I've asked him to stop doing this repeatedly, , and , for example, as have others. He has refused to acknowledge that his insinuations are an issue and continues to make them constantly.
	'''Full Disclosure (Collect and I have argued a lot):''' Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I have taken Collect to task several times for what I perceived as unacceptable behavior. He is likely to suggest that I'm harassing or hounding him here, and I want to stress that I have nothing to hide. I have told him in no uncertain terms what I think of his behavior , and , and engaged in an ill-advised debate about what is/isn't FRINGE and and reliable source . I also mistakenly accused him of sockpuppetry , which I promptly apologized for once I realized I was wrong.
	Thank you all for your time, sorry this was so long. ] (]) 02:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:'''Endorse''' - {{u|Fyddlestix}}'s general characterization of events as well as the specifics relating to me. I will comment more tomorrow on the issues raised. ] (]) 02:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''' I see no specific request for administrative action here. Personally, I have disagreed with Collect a few times openly and even more often silently, and am sometimes quite irritated by the editor's style. But never once have I doubted the editor's sincerity and commitment to upholding BLP and NPOV on this encyclopedia. Without editors like Collect, some of our more "progressive" editors would take far too much delight in pillorying conservatives in Misplaced Pages's voice. I am progressive in my private life but strive for NPOV here on Misplaced Pages. Thanks to Collect for forcing us to think seriously about real people's lives instead of simply going with the flow of conventional thinking. ] ] 04:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:'''Close''', per Cullen328 and policy, as this thread makes no request for administrative action. In fact, Collect has been the only editor still trying to stop a huge POV-push with the PNAC list, which was worse at the beginning and which now is still being opposed by the majority of uninvolved editors. No doubt that Collect is tired from being the only editor to care about BLP issues and intellectual integrity enough to try to prevent the most egregious BLP violations and tortured misrepresentations of sources and use of shady sources , . The solution is not to punish Collect for his delusion that he should behave like an editor of the world's most widely used reference and for the rest of us to start acting like encyclopedia editors. A sign of hope for the latter wish is the community's comments on the POV-pushing PNAC list. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 07:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::I think {{ping|Fyddlestix}} is new at this and did not know that they should ask for a block or a ban from editing in a topic area or specific type or class of article for some number months or some other administrative action. As I noted above I intend to comment tomorrow and <em>I</em> do have specific and appropriate sanctions to request. I feel it would be inappropriate to ask for sanction before presenting my own evidence. I am, however, willing to do so if asked by an un-involved administrator - (please ping if requesting me to do this so I get a notice) I also believe, from comments on Jimbo's page, that there is another editor who might want to address {{U|Collect}}'s behavior here. ] (]) 07:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::The timing is poor. Administrator {{user|MastCell}} is already discussing behavioral issues with {{user|Collect}} and other editors at the appropriate talk pages, and I suspect that MastCell's attention suffices. Why do you think that additional action is needed? Which action? Even if MastCell were not already quite active, a question that ANI must face is whether any action against Collect allow BLP-compliance to suffer. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 08:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::The discussion you refer to shows Collect once again denying the problem that many editors are telling him about. That's why this ANI is needed. To summarize: the continuing misrepresentation of other editors and his refusal to admit there's a problem. This has been going on for far too long and needs to stop. That's why there's this open ANI on Collect. It's entirely unclear, however, if Collect is purposefully engaging in personal attacks or if he has a reading comprehension problem. I'm in the middle on this question, but I'm leaning heavily to the latter. He simply doesn't seem to understand what other editors write, and this leads to the current problem under discussion. I really don't think we can block other editors for confusion, but when it borders on competence issues, that's when others start talking about a topic ban. I think if he was prevented from continuing to work on American politics article and would simply confine himself to, let's say, writing about gardening and houseplants, everything would be fine. Since the American politics topic area is under arbcom restrictions, we should be considering an enforcement action if the problematic behavior continues. ] (]) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Your passive-aggressive personal attacks about "reading comprehension" continue the harassment of Collect for which you were recently warned by {{user|Newyorkbrad}} and by other administrators. Please let MastCell discuss issues with the relevant editors, and let MastCell come to ANI if more input is needed. <span class="nowrap">]]</span> 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Fyddlestix claims he and Collect have been in a lengthy argument. I would say this should be rephrased and admitted as what it is, which is that Fyddlestix doesn't agree with Collect so he's going to seek sanction against Collect. In his 1500 edits since starting in earnest last November, Fyddlestix has already filed a misguided SPI claim against Collect and has committed 20% of his edits to various venues surrounding the PNAC debate. Most annoying is the unreadable walls of text and diffs that show zero except the normal back and forth one is likely to encounter if they decide to participate in POV pushing on hotbutton topics. If this witch hunt by Fyddlestix persists, the block and or site ban should probably be leveled against Fyddlestix. Please stop seeking sanctions against those that have the right to oppose your POV pushing.--] 09:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	**In my experience, Collect usually gets it right, especially on BLP issues. It would be helpful if he could provide some diffs to reinforce his statements about certain editors being anti-Semitic and whatever else. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Close this and let the AfD run it's course. I believe Collect is correct that a new spinout list about an organization that died out 10 years ago and statement of principles that was signed 20 years is a POV fork with BLP and NPOV issues (the controversial bullet points are basically US foreign policy now and adopted by both parties post 9/11 so list inclusion criteria are rather unworkable). It's obvious that some editors disagree but it's already playing out in AfD. This type of canvassing is not much different than the canvassing charges leveled above. --] (]) 09:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::The problems predate the AfD, as has been indicated above. These diffs may not represent canvassing, but they show Collect attempting to get an administrator to intervene in a content dispute.</br>Collect complains about my edits at PNAC to {{u|Swarm}}, making unsubstantiated BLP violation claims, etc:
	:#
	:#
	:#</br>
	::Only one other editor commented in that thread
	::--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	Nice to see yet another drama board section-- again '''at no time and in no place have I called anyone here an "anti-semite" nor have I accused anyone of being a McCarthy supporter'''. I consider my posts - including a bunch of RfCs I initiated to be within what ] actually requires. I note the AfD which arouses ire was ''not'' started by me, and (quite oddly) appears to indicate that a ''strong consensus of other editors'' agree with my view on the "list" article. The above seems, in fact, just another example, in my opinion, of misuse of the stated purpose of this notice board. I, in fact, editors here to examine the discussion at the AfD ] and the discussion at UT:Jimbo and examine the unanimous nature of what appears to be a quite vocal and iterative minority at the AfD page. Cheers to all and Happy Saint Patrick's Day to all. ] (]) 11:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	For funsies: an editor did not like the fact that a source he insists ''supports'' a particular claim, does not actually do so. Therefore the part he does not like in his own source is "clearly a mistake." Um -- if the part of a RS which does not support a claim in a BLP is "clearly a mistake" is it remotely possible that someone found the source by google-], and the source actually does not support the claim? I have this horrid and admittedly annoying habit of actual reading ''more than a single sentence'' found in a google search, and if the source clearly contradicts a claim, I do not assert that it supports the claim, but that ''it has a mistake when it does not do so'' <g>. It is a tad embarrassing when anyone points out absolute misuse of sources, no? ] (]) 12:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Edit warring, vandalism, and legal threat by ] ==
	{{userlinks|Anticomintern}} has edit-warred against two other users on ] ( ). When warned by {{u|STSC}}, he replied with a legal threat . More recently the user replaced the Chinese flag on ] with the Nazi flag (). His username also implies pro-Nazi sympathy (see ]). The user is clearly ] to build an encyclopedia. -] (]) 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:The legal threat is kinda irrelevant. This is a troll. Show him the door, with prejudice. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::User was indef blocked about an hour ago by another admin. -- ] (]) 09:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	== Nerdypunkkid ==
	*{{Userlinks|Nerdypunkkid}}
	*{{Userlinks|SimpleBlueBlazer}}
	] is an editor who has created a several promotional articles about non-notable or barely notable subjects. () The editor has also gone on a couple of sprees adding very spammy links to articles without any common connection (it was another editor's recent warning which brought my attention back to the problem). I think this is an undisclosed paid editor. I've tried to ask the editor about the spam a couple of times, once in October during ], and once again today, but no response. After cleaning up I think this editor is doing more harm than good. In addition to that, there may also be sockpuppetry involved. ] readded some links to the same site to the same articles just today (new: old:; new: old:). This was a couple hours after Nerdypunkkid finished his/her batch, although there was no other overlap between the two accounts. I think the promotional editing is more serious, which is why I'm taking this here. Thanks. ] (]) 05:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	== Willy Moon ==
	Follow a bit of controversy on the New Sealand X-factor show the article for ] has been the subect to vandalism this has made its way to a FB page with 100,000+ fiollowers can we get some more eyes watching this page Though I suspect that full protection may be a necessary option. ]] 07:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:<s>{{nonadmin}} See below... ] (]) 10:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</s><small>revdelled, nothing to see, anymore ] (]) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
	== "Vandalism" ==
	{{atop|Vandal blocked, talk page access revoked--] (]) 11:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	Just to let you all know that "palestine" does not exist, and I'm removing it from Misplaced Pages. Thank you.] (]) 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:There is a Misplaced Pages article called ], and it appears to be a real entity, not a hoax. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Hi Bugs. IP has been blocked for vandalism. -- ] (]) 09:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Very good. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::The IP account needs its user talk page access revoked as well, as it's using it to make personal attacks. —] (]) 09:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			:Sorry. I forgot to sign it. Was typing in a rush. ] ] 23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	== 122.148.163.131 / Pabdelma / SweetPoet345 : disruptive, vandalism, incompetence ==
			::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)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 179.96.218.28 ==
	{{userlinks|122.148.163.131}}
			{{userlinks|179.96.218.28}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Jolly Holiday|prev|1271417023|1}}, {{diff|Eleanor Parker|prev|1270955998|2}}, {{diff|Warner Bros. Family Entertainment|prev|1270694117|3}}, {{diff|List of Looney Tunes feature films|prev|1270436599|4}}, {{diff|List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters|prev|1269675628|5}}. ] (]) 04:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{userlinks|Pabdelma}}
			:Blocked for a week. This is more tricky than the /64 below because this IP has not been active for long and has not previously been blocked. The two cases seem very similar and I suspect I have seen others with the same style. Is there an LTA with this approach? ] (]) 09:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:6C60:39F0:B0D0:0:0:0:0/64 ==
	{{userlinks|SweetPoet345}}
			{{userlinks|2600:6C60:39F0:B0D0:0:0:0:0/64}} - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings and behaviour continued after a 72h block on January 19. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|My Peoples|prev|1271323067|1}}, {{diff|List of American theatrical animated feature films (2020–present)|prev|1271330577|2}}, {{diff|List of animated feature films of 2028|prev|1271146570|3}}, {{diff|List of American films of 2027|prev|1271103363|4}}. ] (]) 04:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	Repeated attempts to create articles with insufficient competence, beginning with lack of minimum English language skills. An example of their idea of a good Misplaced Pages article can be found . Multiple disruptive/vandalism warnings by multiple editors. Significant disruption at ], creating at least seven sections, two of them containing nothing but profanity. I was prepared to ignore until they came back with a brand new username. {{redacted}}. Help. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Blocked for three months. ] (]) 09:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] and ]/] violations and ] behavior by ] ==
	Note, the aforementioned user page has been deleted, I guess because it contained the user's full name and address. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Yes, I emailed ]. -- ] (]) 10:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::And I've just blocked SweetPoet345 as an ] sock account. ​—] (])​ 12:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			I was holding off on filing some type of report until they decided to try to force their changes again on any of the articles, but their recent comment on their talk page is definitely casting ] on {{U|Geraldo Perez}}, accusing him of editing logged out, as seen , which was the final straw for me. They already have a plethora of warnings on their talk page for a few different things, and they've only been here since Tuesday and have already accrued that many warnings in their 59 edits, as of writing this. They've made a personal attack against Geraldo . Granted, it's not the worst one in the world, but it's still a personal attack nonetheless. They have edit warred across multiple articles, as seen , , , , , , , , , and . At this point, a block or some other kind of sanction definitely seems appropriate, in my opinion. ''']''' • 09:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Which colours for band members timeline? Closure requested ==
			== Disruptive only editor ==
	We could use an uninvolved editor to gauge the discussion and determine consensus so as to close the RfC at ]. Thanks in advance! ] (]) 12:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			Shashank Yedhuru has been to not add or change content, without citing a reliable source but ignores warnings, does not respond to warnings and continues to vandalize pages like ] by changing boxoffice figures that are not backed by the sources. Since the third warning, Shashank Yedhuru made these disruptive edits again , and this . I did not think any more warnings is going to make any difference so brought it here to ANI. ] (]) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:I mean technically the citations in place don't support the status quo text either since this rather questionable source says 1800 crore, not 1830. ] (]) 13:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	Judging by his userpage hes a definite troll. I say an admin needs to indef him. ] (]) 12:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			::Good catch. I fixed that just now but not before when the disruptive editor after this ANI report. ] (]) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'd suggest trying not to ] a newbie too much. They're not being particularly communicative yet but they may not even know about their user talk page considering how few edits they have. {{ping|Shashank Yedhuru}} I'll try a ping to get your attention. We do require changes be accompanied by reliable sources. Can you please advise if you have a source for your revised figures? ] (]) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::After this message, the 2 month old newbie Shashank Yedhuru made yet another revert back to and now crossed edit warring. I am very sure that Shashank Yedhuru got your ping and the ones before and is ignoring it. ] (]) 15:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 15:37, 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)

Agree with a "structure" for reviewing Dragon's articles and Dragon's involvement. Their 'own' articles are where it seems the vast majority of problematic editing lies. Oppose mainspace editing restriction because I'm not satisfied a strong enough case has been made. To be clear, I'm not "acting more out of a feeling". Of course, should Dragon agree to a mainspace editing restriction that would change things. Rupples (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've already had my say indicating 'absolutely nothing but article fixing' (there is plenty of evidence around their inability to source properly - pick any off the list they've started and have a look), and would still strongly prefer that was the starting point until, say, DoB have worked on fifteen articles they started to raise them to an acceptable level (per KJP's comment just above). That should give a very rough initial indication whether there is sufficient willpower, competence and desire to continue editing at the required level. The restriction could be loosened after that to allow some other steps (eg, allowed to create two or three articles at AfD if they wish - on the understanding KJP or Cremastra (or other acceptable parties) review those articles prior to them being moved to mainspace). - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd favour a restriction which means they will focus entirely on upgrading existing poor articles, and so stop editing not only mainspace but categories, templates, portals, etc. If we only say "no mainspace editing" I can imagine a flurry of creation of unnecessary categories, navboxes, or something else no-one thought to exclude. Perhaps allow talk page access (both article and user) so that if they see something which really needs correcting they can make a post suggesting it or alert a relevant editor. PamD 08:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

  (I'm going to use the COI term with the meaning which I think you intended....IMO the Wiki-meanings are too broad and variable). IMO the golden rule (which IMO was mistakenly taken out of the COI guideline) is (paraphrasing) that where influence from the COI connection overrides the duty to edit properly in the interests/objectives of Misplaced Pages, you have an (in practice) COI. And the policy says that in the highest-risk condition (PE) they are strongly discouraged (not forbidden) from editing directly. IMO good practice in relation to this is that edits where there is any COI type question about the edit that they should request somebody else to put it in. While I haven't taken a deep dive on their edits, from looking at the ones presented to make the case that they are problematic, I see only minor violations of that "good practice" and no explicit violations of policy. Another consideration in my mind is that IMO undisclosed paid editing is a huge problem in Misplaced Pages and IMO Misplaced Pages being overly rough on disclosed paid editing contributes to that "undisclosed" problem. Finally, the described voluntary restrictions if adhered to (and with them as a 60k editor with only a tiny fraction of their edits being PE, I expect would happen) would remove all question for a year and then be just normal practices (and all of that inevitably under a magnifying glass, with the obvious option of coming back here if needed) IMO would solve it. Which is why I suggest (only) the voluntary restrictions at this time Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Since it's been removed, I don't know what is in dispute. Manannan67 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The "dispute", Manannan67, is whether or not you understand the legal severity of copyright violations, and whether or not you will make a firm commitment to refrain from copyright violations in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked at their most recent addition of significant addition prose to article space this material to the article Rodrigo de Cerrato, made last November after he first five warnings:

• it seems that he traveled to different towns where there were centres of his Order with the intention of gathering information for his great work
  • Source:It seems that the Cerratense travelled to different towns where there were centres of his Order with the intention of gathering information to write his great work
• It was intended to facilitate the preparation of sermons for preachers
  • Source:attempting to create a hagiographic repertoire that would facilitate the preparation of sermons for preachers
• In 1259 he lived in Segovia and in 1272 in Caleruega, where Domingo de Guzmán was originally from, probably researching to write the life of the holy founder.
  • Source:In 1259 he lived in Segovia and in 1272 in Caleruega, where Domingo de Guzmán was originally from, probably researching to write the life of the holy founder

This is very obvious plagiarism of a non-free source. The fact that they, an editor with 16k+ edits, insist on viewing the inclusion of non-free external material as a dispute or sourcing issue is troubling. Could an admin please consider indefinitely blocking them from the article and draft namespaces until they understand the issues with their edits? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

  When you hold an opinion, and all you get when you express that opinion is multiplying warnings and threats...no support either, a wise man at least considers the possibility that the one in the wrong might just, in fact, be himself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal - short duration block for Unas964

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

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

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

Oh do stop. I've been trying to be nice to you and all you've done in response is insult me repeatedly. This isn't twitter. Stop acting like it is. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

support indef per the doubling down above of the Battleground Mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and indef'd. The editor - who has been around since 2019 - has apparently made all of one edit outside of this very narrow topic, and while they haven't made any articlespace edits since receiving the contentious-topic warning, their behavior in this discussion, and their talk page edits, make it clear that they are not here to help build a collaborative encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Caste-based disruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)
• Oppose This is a massive overreaction. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Given Cullen's description of the old edits, if Riventree wishes for a third chance to edit, they should demonstrate a much better understanding of the harassment policy than a <shamefaced grimace>. Asking other constructive editors who actually do things like understand sourcing guidelines and NPOV to spend time putting up with personal attacks and harassment will drive them off. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous8206

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

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

---

• Anonymous8206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

WP:BLP policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: Special:PermanentLink/1268615581#Liddle Hart. I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to Talk:Donald Trump in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in Randa Kassis following her meeting with Donald Trump Jr., which was widely covered by newspapers and the press. I understand that she is seen as a controversial figure, particularly due to her relationship with Russia, as noted by Psychloppos. However, it is important to recognise her contributions as part of the opposition in achieving two significant initiatives: the Astana Platform, which she proposed to the first Kazakh president and successfully implemented to halt further Moscow Platform rounds, and the Constitutional Committee in 2017, endorsed by the troika and the United Nations as a pathway to peace. Notably, the Astana process was accepted by a large number of brigades, and the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) as well as the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) participated in the Constitutional Committee. There are numerous secondary sources confirming that.

I would like to emphasise that I am not a UPE and that my contributions have been made in good faith.

I’m asking for your assistance in reviewing the deletion of the Astana content. Moreover I would like to highlight that decisions on Misplaced Pages are meant to be collective, not individual, which is why I believe in Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable platform. Thanks for your help.@Shirt58: Your message here. Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry again, due to my inexperience with templates, I asked AI to help me with pinging, and I copied and pasted without deleting« your message». 😔🙏 Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

A word to the wise - people tend to look poorly upon chatbot generated complaints at this board. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion, but have no recollection of any involvement. It's not a topic which interests me. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply; I greatly appreciate it. While I’m not experienced with templates, I like to occasionally make contributions when I can.

The admin “Squirrel Conspiracy” merged the page for the Astana Platform into the Randa Kassis page. I am unsure who can help me review this deletion. If you check my contributions, you’ll see that I tried reaching out to the admin but received no response. I also requested a review to address and resolve the misunderstanding, but I haven’t had any luck so far.

Best regards, Ecrivain Wagner Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That appears to be normal editing under WP:BLAR rather than administrative action. As such it is a content dispute and off-topic here. Take it up on the talk page of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been pinged to this discussion, so here's my two cents. I support this action (which I originally proposed) and this one by @The Squirrel Conspiracy:. The same could perhaps be done with the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians : that group did exist but from the few sources I could find it seems to have been pretty negligible and to have evaporated pretty quickly. Astana Platform may warrant an article but I agree that in its latest form the page was pretty much "unfixable". Mentions of the peace talks in Astana should be developed in Syrian peace process, and it should of course specified that the so-called Astana process was sponsored by Russia and boycotted by the opposition's High negotiation committee.

I can't tell if it was the work of a paid editor, but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person or several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages, make her look more important than she actually was within the Syrian opposition, obfuscate her ties to Russia and perhaps even embellish her professional credentials. The Randa Kassis page and all mentions of her and her role in the Syrian civil war, the Syrian opposition and the peace talks endorsed by Russia need to be cleaned up and closely monitored. Psychloppos (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

As I mentioned earlier, I became interested in Randa Kassis following her meeting with Donald Trump Jr., which was widely covered by newspapers and the press. I understand that she is seen as a controversial figure, particularly due to her relationship with Russia, as noted by Psychloppos. However, it is important to recognise her contributions as part of the opposition in achieving two significant initiatives: the Astana Platform, which she proposed to the first Kazakh president and successfully implemented to halt further Moscow Platform rounds, and the Constitutional Committee in 2017, endorsed by the troika and the United Nations as a pathway to peace. Notably, the Astana process was accepted by a large number of brigades, and the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) as well as the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) participated in the Constitutional Committee. There are numerous secondary sources confirming that.

I would like to emphasise that I am not a UPE and that my contributions have been made in good faith.

I’m asking for your assistance in reviewing the deletion of the Astana content. Moreover I would like to highlight that decisions on Misplaced Pages are meant to be collective, not individual, which is why I believe in Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable platform. Thanks for your help. Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

To put some flesh on the bones of the suggestion made above by Psychloppos that they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been for several years a spam-like effort by one person or several persons to promote Randa Kassis on Misplaced Pages... details can be found in this recent post elsewhere by The Squirrel Conspiracy, mentioning various accounts including Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam.

A recent sockpuppet investigation into Hazar Sam seems to have come up with nothing. However, I note that Ecrivain Wagner was not included in that SPI.

The activity of multiple SPA type accounts in relation to Randa Kassis and related subjects extends beyond English Misplaced Pages to French Misplaced Pages (and perhaps beyond, I don’t know). In that connection it may be worth noting that three of Ecrivain Wagner’s few non-Kassis related edits (on English Misplaced Pages) relate to the British TV show Slow Horses ( , and ) and that a month or so later Hazar Sam was editing the equivalent article on French Misplaced Pages, here , making the identical point (that it is a British series rather than a US one). Both the Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam accounts are active on both English and French Misplaced Pages. Hazar Sam is the primary author of the (English) Randa Kassis article (38.2% of the current text).

The level of coincidence here seems rather extreme given that the TV series has no connection to Randa Kassis etc. It may be worth someone’s while to re-run the SPI including Ecrivain Wagner (not a process I am familiar with unfortunately, otherwise I would do it myself).

I have no opinion on the issues of promotion or whether the Astana/Kassis redirect was right or wrong. I just happened to spot the coincidence above and thought I should mention it. Axad12 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Some further detail here. The Ecrivain Wagner and Hazar Sam accounts show very similar patterns of activity on both English and French Misplaced Pages.

English Misplaced Pages:

Ecrivain Wagner account opened on 20 Feb 2016. It is then dormant for over 3 years.

Hazar Sam opened their account on 19 Mar 2016 and started editing on Randa Kassis a fortnight later. The Hazar Sam account is then almost entirely dormant for the better part of 3 years before starting to edit around the Syrian peace process on 19 May 2019.

The long dormant Ecrivian Wagner then starts editing (on the same sort of subject matter) on 25 Jun 2019 (i.e. a few weeks after Hazar Sam returns from a similarly long break).

Both accounts are then very active in that topic area in Jun/Jul 2019 before both cease editing altogether. Both then re-commence editing in the same topic area in Sep-Nov 2019. Both are then entirely dormant for a year until Sept-Oct 2020 when both start again.

The Wagner account is then entirely dormant for 3 and a half years until May 2024, when it makes a few edits, later making some edits on Randa Kassis in Sept 2024. Then, apart from the Slow Horses activity (noted in a previous post), it is dormant until a few days ago when it becomes animated re: the Astana/Kassis redirect.

The Hazar Sam account is also almost entirely dormant for an almost identical period from Oct 2020 to Mar 2024, barring a few Kassis related edits. It only makes a handful of edits during 2024 before starting a significant amount of Kassis-related activity in December 2024.

Activity on French Misplaced Pages is basically the same, with both accounts being active in Sep/Oct 2020 and Oct 2024 and otherwise being pretty much entirely dormant.

I would therefore suggest that the periods when these accounts are active and dormant pretty much mirror each other all the way from 2016 to 2024, both on English and French Misplaced Pages, that they are pretty much always editing solely in the same topic area, and that there is very strong reason to believe that both accounts are thus being operated by the same end user. Axad12 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Since Randa Kassis - as far as I know - lives in France and has made some appearances in the French media, published a book in France and so on, it makes sense that a French speaker interested in the topic of the Syrian civil war would be at least a little familiar with her (that is, if they do not have actual connections with her). Psychloppos (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

True, but that doesn’t explain why the end user was apparently maintaining two accounts on English Misplaced Pages - one for the purpose of being a major contributor to various Kassis-related articles, and one for the purpose of being a minor contributor and complaining on various different forums when those same articles were impacted by a redirect.

The user has already admitted to indulging in WP:LOUTSOCK behaviour , which they describe as enjoy a little anonymous fun. The Slow Horses activity and the overall timeline from 2016-2024 indicates very strongly that the user was operating two registered accounts over an extended period of time.

And, if further proof is needed…

Apart from the various Kassis-related articles which both accounts have edited (plus the unrelated Slow Horses), they have also edited the article for Eric (TV series), making identical edits here and here under the two different accounts.

The user has already asked to be blocked here during a recent discussion on their talk page re: SPI, personal attacks and legal threats. They say they are tired of the rules and that If blocking me makes you happy, then by all means, crack on—I’ve no desire left to contribute. I won’t bite my tongue just to win your approval and keep engaging on a platform that’s rapidly losing its credibility.

Maybe it's time for an admin to let the user have what it seems they are looking for. Axad12 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Psychloppos (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns. I’m open to any necessary processes, including CheckUser, to help resolve this misunderstanding. I understand the importance of clarifying these doubts, and I want to affirm that my goal has always been to contribute in good faith. Additionally, I’d like to highlight that my contributions to articles about Randa Kassis were made with a neutral tone and were always supported by reliable references. 🙏 Ecrivain Wagner (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@Sp: Editing some random topic and getting into an argument is not “wandering around looking for something to be outraged about”. It’s a fundamental part of editing Misplaced Pages. I prune external links pretty regularly and without controversy. I was not wading into some obviously contentious issue looking for trouble. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

These should be reverted, per sp and especially Floquenbeam's comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In Links to be considered, WP:ELMAYBE lists Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Dronebogus thinks that line is "oxymoronic to the point of uselessness" and doesn't "buy that guidance". Dronebogus thinks external links need to be "notable" (whatever that means). It isn't unusual for an editor to disagree with some bit of guidance on the project, but the productive approach is to try to get consensus to modify the guidance, not to make up their own version and apply it despite objections. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Notable means WP:NOTABLE. What else? Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

These link removals strike me as extremely bad, in the sense that they are deliberately making an article less useful to readers as an educational resource, with apparently very little in the way of justification. This would seem in some sense to be a content dispute, but there is indeed a recurring issue where DB ends up at some noticeboard over pointlessly rude and aggressive behaviors, over the span of some years now. jp×g🗯️ 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Opening a thread on the external links talk page is at least a step towards wisdom, but frankly, if I am unclear on the purpose or meaning of a policy, I would not go around trying to enforce it by removing giant reams of stuff. jp×g🗯️ 04:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: I feel like every time this happens it’s someone criticizing me for doing the right thing a little too slowly. Dronebogus (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry I bulk removed the stuff on the origami and knitting pages. It was poor form in the midst of a content dispute. I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject. I personally don’t think this needed to escalate this far, especially since I received no talk page warning before ANI. It was a content dispute that got a little heated and I overstepped my reach on. I see nothing in my conduct here that would rise to the level of sanctioning when you take into account some established contributors are repeatedly allowed to walk back on grossly insulting people and generally dancing on the limits of acceptable conduct. Dronebogus (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject." the problem here is that when you were told the official guidelines on external links like Schazjmd laid out above, you completely disregarded them and went by what you think the guidelines should be to you. It's one thing if you don't like the guidelines, that's perfectly fine, but to blow them off the way you did just isn't on. Every Misplaced Pages editor (probably) has policies/guidelines they don't like, but they don't get to violate them just because they don't like them. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Then what is WP:IAR? Because it’s been evoked both ways in this argument, and it seems like it’s only valid if it’s against me. There are no rules on what can be an EL, except when there are, and those rules are Dronebogus cannot remove any of them. Dronebogus (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Dronebogus, you know damn well that IAR is only applied in really rare extenuating circumstances that this obviously doesn't fall under. IAR also isn't a "get out of following policies and guidelines" card either. Someone can't e.g. change the British spelling of colour/armour/etc. to the American spelling all willy-nilly and shout IAR in their defense, because that's disruptive. (Not equating this to that, but am using this as an illustration). And the latter is a complete strawman. You were told the guidelines on external links and brushed them off. Removing irrelevant links is one thing, removing relevant informational links is another, and relevant informational links are permitted by the current EL guidelines. Now you may argue if the latter are important enough in the article to keep, that's fine, but those are debates for the individual article talk pages. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I don’t “know damn well”, because that’s not what the WP:IAR page says. Am I just supposed to infer this from some mass of case law that is not discussed there? In any case I am no longer doing it, I acknowledged that some of my edits were sloppy, I took it to the talk page of the policy, is there something else I need to do? I apologize for being somewhat curt but I personally think that JD Gale isn’t entirely in the right either by taking this directly to ANI instead of discussing it on my talk page. I don’t know if they know this but “summoning” someone to ANI is generally regarded as “taking the kid gloves off” at best and vexatious hostility at worst. As with most of these situations I’d like to let it drop and actually discuss the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:External links like I was attempting to do. Dronebogus (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:IAR relates to edits directed to improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. Removing useful ELs serves neither purpose. Narky Blert (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Not everyone considers them useful. I don’t agree with the maximalist school of thought that’s apparently prevalent on Wikimedia— the idea that adding is the greatest good and removing is at best a necessary evil, or that WP:BOLD only applies to adding content. If the overwhelming consensus is that what I just said is, to some extent, true, then it should be an official guideline. But this is a grey area, which should be settled by discussion rather than yelling at me that I broke a deliberately vague rule. Once again, I acknowledge removing a bunch of links in the middle of a content dispute about removing a bunch of links is not good, and I wouldn’t have edit warred it back after it was inevitably reverted. But you can’t sanction me for having a different definition of “useful” than an apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of. Dronebogus (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

n apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of.

You're aware of it now. Narky Blert (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, after the fact. Dronebogus (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when making similar edits across multiple articles it's a good idea to stop or slow down when someone raises an objection in order to avoid WP:FAIT problems. Edits made across a large number of articles are more difficult to reverse, so editors are generally expected to be more receptive to objections and more willing to discuss them if one comes up. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have stopped sooner. But I only made two similar edits after the objection, which is not hard to reverse. This level of escalation would have made more sense if I had just kept going and going. Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder what the supposed improvement is from removing the link to The Dark Side of the White Lady, a documentary by Patricio Henríquez on the website of the National Film Board of Canada about the ship from the article Chilean barquentine Esmeralda. Your incorrect arguments about the links needing to be notable clearly don't apply here.

Similarly, under the guise of pruning a "link farm" from two to one entries, you removed an interview that Daniel C. Tsang had on KUCI radio from Bill Andriette. No idea either why you e.g. removed from Schoolly D the link to his entry on Lambiek#Comiclopedia, a reliable source used extensively on enwiki and here presenting an aspect otherwise not touched upon in the article. It looks as if your external links mission has done more harm than good, even in those cases where no one objected so far. Fram (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The first two would be much better used as sources. The link to White Lady would be much better used on the article about that movie. The Comicpedia one was a mistake and I’ve restored it. Keeping these arbitrary links tacked on to the page does not improve the article. Using the information in them would. I stand by these as legitimate, non-disruptive edits even if you disagree with them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

How does removing a link to a good source improve an article? You didn’t cite it, you just erased it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not erased, it’s in the history. But I’m salvaging some of the links right now and will try to do this in the future before deleting them. I am more than willing to learn from my mistakes; it’s just that whenever I end up at ANI I assume it’s because someone wants me removed from the project, or otherwise punished, because that’s just what ANI is used for. Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Adillia

INTERACTION BAN Aidillia and D.18th are hereby banned from interacting with each other, everywhere on Misplaced Pages, subject to the standard exceptions. They are also indefinitely banned from editing in the File: namespace and are partially blocked. For clarity: the filespace restriction is narrowly construed and does not extend to edits related to images and media in other namespaces. Violations of the first restriction may be enforced by any administrator with escalating blocks and may lead to further sanctions per WP:RECIDIVISM. This may be considered an involved close since I commented below, but these two restrictions have been separately proposed three different times throughout this ongoing incident, and there has been unanimous support each time and overall, therefore I see no way that any competent closer would not reach the same conclusion.-- Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. Aidillia 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on File:Love Your Enemy poster.png. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) Aidillia 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as a character poster by Korean reliable sources. You know that we rely more on independent secondary reliable sources rather on official website or social media accounts as they are primary sources, so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on File:Love Scout poster.png. You will just engaged in WP:EDITWAR. I've also seen you revert on File:Light Shop poster.png; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. Aidillia 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

User talk:Juice and ye 999

TPA-b-gon applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

• Juice and ye 999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please revoke TPA? Thanks. C F A 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

37.47.76.95 - personal attacks

IP account blocked for a week. Liz 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

37.47.76.95 (talk · contribs) - self-explanatory from this. Whoever they are, they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Departure– (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll add I'm active in a few sockpuppet investigations and a few semi-controversial discussions especiallly around the California fires and Gulf of Mexico so it wouldn't shock me too much if this was a sock or LOUT because this is clearly targeted towards me in particular. Maybe a CU will be needed if this continues. Departure– (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

To be fair, "stops editing as an IP and makes an account" isn't sockpuppetry, it's what we ideally want editors to do. And IPs are dynamic, so it's not surprising two diffferent IPs are the same user.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My comment is the type of Tongue-in-cheek remark that I hope contains a core of truth. Any editor who voluntarily chooses a boastful, arrogant username such as Mr. Accuracy Specialist ought to be held to an exceptionally high standard of conduct starting with their very first edit. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

System gaming by NandivadaHungama

No ECR for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

I believe NandivadaHungama (talk · contribs · count) is WP:Gaming the system per WP:PGAME by editing their user page 500 times and thus should have extended-confirmed rights removed.--A09|(talk) 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

I have just reverted 3 edits by ThePurgatori from 24 January 2025, unexplained change of a diameter without edit summary. Renerpho (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My evolution

Since 10/01/2024, i have been getting ideas to add the Category:Possible dwarf planets to a high number of TNOs, even those like 42355 whose diameters are below 300 km, i accidentally do it, I'm very sorry.

Adding the ones in Michael E. Brown list is now getting so much.

I also have done additional unreferenced words into Resonant trans-Neptunian object, and List of possible dwarf planets:

In resonant trans-Neptunian object, i accidentally have make edits like putting 2014 HZ199 into the resonance, which is unreferenced, the DES has secured that this objects orbit is not resonant.

In List of possible dwarf planets, i accidentally have make edits without reference that is, adding (15789) 1993 SC to the main table of the likeliest dwarf planets topic, and adding some TNOs that are guesstimates by Michael E. Brown to the table which is only for TNOs with diameters published in scientific literature.

I'm sorry, i will start making referenced edits and give an edit summary, please give me chances, don't sanction me ThePurgatori (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 179.96.218.28

179.96.218.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. This is more tricky than the /64 below because this IP has not been active for long and has not previously been blocked. The two cases seem very similar and I suspect I have seen others with the same style. Is there an LTA with this approach? Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:6C60:39F0:B0D0:0:0:0:0/64

2600:6C60:39F0:B0D0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings and behaviour continued after a 72h block on January 19. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:EW/WP:3RR violations and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by User:DisneyEditor1

I was holding off on filing some type of report until they decided to try to force their changes again on any of the articles, but their recent comment on their talk page is definitely casting WP:ASPERSIONS on Geraldo Perez, accusing him of editing logged out, as seen here, which was the final straw for me. They already have a plethora of warnings on their talk page for a few different things, and they've only been here since Tuesday and have already accrued that many warnings in their 59 edits, as of writing this. They've made a personal attack against Geraldo here. Granted, it's not the worst one in the world, but it's still a personal attack nonetheless. They have edit warred across multiple articles, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. At this point, a block or some other kind of sanction definitely seems appropriate, in my opinion. Amaury • 09:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive only editor Shashank Yedhuru

Shashank Yedhuru has been warned three times to not add or change content, without citing a reliable source but ignores warnings, does not respond to warnings and continues to vandalize pages like Pushpa 2 by changing boxoffice figures that are not backed by the sources. Since the third warning, Shashank Yedhuru made these disruptive edits again changing boxoffice figure, and this unsourced change. I did not think any more warnings is going to make any difference so brought it here to ANI. RangersRus (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean technically the citations in place don't support the status quo text either since this rather questionable source says 1800 crore, not 1830. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed that just now but not before when the disruptive editor reverted one more time after this ANI report. RangersRus (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying not to WP:BITE a newbie too much. They're not being particularly communicative yet but they may not even know about their user talk page considering how few edits they have. @Shashank Yedhuru: I'll try a ping to get your attention. We do require changes be accompanied by reliable sources. Can you please advise if you have a source for your revised figures? Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

After this message, the 2 month old newbie Shashank Yedhuru made yet another revert back to unsourced changes and now crossed edit warring. I am very sure that Shashank Yedhuru got your ping and the ones before and is ignoring it. RangersRus (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards