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

Revision as of 09:15, 18 September 2013 editPenwhale (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,574 edits →Alexis Reich move discussion← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:32, 17 January 2025 edit undoBarntToust (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,629 edits →Suspected off-wiki coordination in COVID-19 lab leak topic: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|maxarchivesize = 700K		|maxarchivesize =800K
	|counter = 811		|counter = 1176
	|algo = old(36h)		|algo = old(72h)
			|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
	|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
			|headerlevel=2
	}}<!--{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			}}
	|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			{{stack end}}
	|archiveprenefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchi
			<!--
	|format=%%i
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	|age=36
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	|index=no
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
	|archivenow=<nowiki>{{discussion top}},{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{archive top|,Template:Archive top</nowiki>
			==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics==
	|numberstart=756
	|minarchthreads= 1
	|minkeepthreads= 4
	|maxarchsize= 700000
	|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505sc0c
	}}
	-----------------------------------------------------------
	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.
			]'s uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it ''is'' problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:
	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.
	----------------------------------------------------------
	-->
			Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
	== Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus ==
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
	<!-- ] 06:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC) -->
	The move review discussion for ],was recently by ] as no consensus despite only seven !votes being cast and of those only two were to endorse closure. Two editors including myself have requested an explanation with no result. Could someone please either get an explanation for their actions against consensus or reverse the disputed closure. ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I think this ANI thread is a little early. Earthh asked the question and 8 hours later you took the issue to ANI. Give it 24 to 48 hours from Earthh's message and then come here.--v/r - ]] 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Actually, Jreferee did respond; PantherLeapord's own behavior is cause of the breakdown in communication.--] ]/] 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Observation: The problem is that the 2 overturn-pending-explanation votes were not adjusted after the explanation is given. However, even when you toss those 2 votes out, there are 2 endorse close, 4 overturn, 1 relist. That is still sufficient evidence that the move is not supported, and the MR should not have been closed as such. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Jreferee just replied with the following:
	::<blockquote>The ] was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close.</blockquote>
	::What confuses me is that this implies that votes not going either way were to be interpreted as "endorse". Is that how things are supposed to be done normally? ]&#124;]&#124;] 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
			WP:NPA
	*I have asked and to comment here, as their comments (and lack of follow-up) contributed (inadvertently, most likely) to this report. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 05:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	I'm interested to see how this turns out. I was initially alarmed when an administrator, ], was upset with ] because, quite frankly, I don't want him to make any mistakes since I was his mentor a bit ago after he got into a bit of trouble and sought out the adopt-a-user program. However, quite frankly, there's no way this should have proceeded this way by my definition of "consensus." Though it may be wiki-career suicide, I, too, disagree with the actions of Jreferee. However, with that said, I'll stop short of accusing anything more than a hasty or accidental action. I've certainly made worse mistakes than this. I do think that the decision should be reversed, but Jreferee, who has a history of very positive contributions, should simply duly note this, and everyone should move on. --] (] • ]) 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
	Jreferee spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title.--] (]) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Looking at the whole; even the comments presents the official name is "Thirty Seconds". I like how the argument against "Thirty Seconds" is the Allmusic usage of "30 seconds...", but the title is "Thirty Seconds" and the url changes as well to match it.. Further evidence comes from the "Awards" which all list "Thirty Seconds". MTV also lists "Thirty Seconds". The official website is "Thirty Seconds to Mars". Now let's not get into the limitations of Twitter where the short-hand is adequate. BBC uses it, but here is the interesting thing, other websites use "Thirty Seconds" and aside from the Youtube, the major sites all use it. If anything, the usage in authoritative (not short hand) form is for "Thirty Seconds" and Misplaced Pages is a professional-level encyclopedia and should reflect that in both prose and title. The prose says "Thirty Seconds" not "30 seconds" throughout and when weighing the factors, seems to be a clear choice. ] (]) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	:*You should read my comments on the move review. AllMusic changed the name recently, it was 30 Seconds to Mars when I posted it, but if you read the biography, they still use 30 Seconds to Mars. This also underline the fact that the "Thirty Seconds" is a new name. Since 1998 the band has been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards, that's why "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect (read ]).--] (]) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	::* Hey, I just am pointing out what I see. For professionalism we should use the official name when it is recognized internationally as such, short or long form of "Thirty". Let's not get into the Manning issue, but this is not out of the ] issue and its not like "Mammoth" to "Van Halen", but just whether or not you write out the number or don't. For appearances and professionalism combined with the adoption and official use of "Thirty" and not "30", the official use should trump over a shortening no matter how prevalent. Examples to this are rather rare, yes, but Misplaced Pages is the sole major site that doesn't use "Thirty". ] (]) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::* They currently use both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". 30 Seconds to Mars has been the official name since 1998, only in 2013 Thirty Seconds to Mars became the official name. 30 Seconds to Mars should remain the title of the article since it has been the official name for almost the entire band's career and we should write that more recently the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars.--] (]) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	:*I think that you guys are getting a bit off-topic. --] (]) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
			Profanity
	I failed to follow-up after posting this in the move review:
	* '''Pending explanation''' - This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn. --B2C 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
	However, the closer, {{User|BDD}} did provide a full explanation:
	*:Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have.
	I disagree with BDD's finding; I think absent a policy based argument favoring the move, it was at best "no consensus". Finding ] in favor for the move by finding a marginal majority of such a small self-selected sample through counting !votes is ''not'' a reasonable explanation. If I had followed up, I would not have endorsed (I wish someone would have notified me to follow up before closing the move review...). '''Overturn'''. <p>What's relevant here is that my input should not have been viewed as an endorse in the closing of the move review. --]2] 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous. There's a 2.5-to-1 majority against endorsing the original closure, and this smacks as the SECOND !supervote in this case. ] ] 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
	**You think closing "it" as no consensus is ridiculous? By "it" do you mean the original RM, or the RM review?<p>You think "this" smacks as the SECOND !supervote in "this case"? What is the first "this" referring to? Does "this case" refer to the original RM, the RM review, or this ANI review of the RM review? --]2] 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
	::*For fuck's sake, if you're going to make this pointless/stupid of a comment, then don't bother commenting at all. As a ten year old could tell, the move review closure is what was closed as no consensus (the RM wasn't closed as no consensus), both closures have been !supervote's, and you're wasting people's time when you attempt to distract from people's comments like this. ] ] 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	::**In my comment I wrote that the original RM (BDD's finding) was "at best 'no consensus'". You replied to that saying you "think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous". There was no way to know you were referring to the no consensus result that actually occurred at the RM review, and not to the "at best" comment I made about the original RM. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. We agree the no consensus finding in the RM review is incorrect. --]2] 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	I'd also like to point out that during the requested move, the nominator had been ], leaving a message on ] talk page to notify him of the requested move, which he supported (read ]).--] (]) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn''' per above post by myself and failure to adequately explain actions in the interim as well as the input of ]2] and ]. --] (]) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn original MR closure''' - Clearly a textbook supervote and should be reversed ASAP. ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I think that we found a consensus. Could someone proceed and restore the original name?--] (]) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. The RM review and the original RM both need to be overturned. --]2] 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	* The information page ] provides process regarding Requested moves and reviewing requested moves. Consensus was decided at the Requested Move proposal and that close was reviewed at Move Review. Some of the same editors in the move request or move review discussions wanting to continue their move positions or move request positions in this AN thread. However, the discussion close and review of that close process provides for closure so that the community can move on. In regards to the request of this AN thread - "Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus" - I was happy to provided it. In further details of that, I do appreciate the above feedback, but my reasoning reposted 04:40, 10 September 2013 above from is still valid. I close the Move Review based on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I considered, but gave less weight, to arguments that merely posted a conclusory statement or did not focus on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly on arguments. B2C posted, "This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn." BDD provided that explanation on 28 August 2013, B2C did not reply, and the discussion was closed 9 September 2013, so I think reasonable to have seen B2C's position as fully endorse and give it the weight I did (more than SmokeyJoe, less than Cúchullain and BDD), within the confines of that discussion. B2C's position in the move review does not make or break the close any more than any one position does. In looking at the discussion as a whole, the collective move review endorse and overturn arguments - which both fell in the spectrum of weak to strong arguments - resulted in both sides providing strong arguments in their reasoning of whether BDD's interpreted the requested move proposal consensus incorrectly. There was no general sense of agreement one way or another. -- ] (]) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::And the community has disagreed with that reading. Please do the right thing and undo your closure. ]&#124;]&#124;] 01:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::<p>When I wrote my comment at the RM review saying I endorsed pending a reasonable explanation from BDD, I fully expected BDD to provide a reasonable explanation. I was so sure about that, I neglected to come back and check until I was notified about this ANI discussion on my user talk page. My bad. Surprisingly, the explanation provided by BDD on 28 August 2013 was, frankly, borderline pathetic. Certainly not reasonable: {{quotation|Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)}}
	::<p>''"No real policy-based arguments to weigh"''. And, yet, BDD found consensus? That's reasonable?
	::<p>''"So I went with a headcount...I went with a majority decision".'' That's reasonable?
	::<p>Finding consensus in such a vacuum is exactly the kind of RM decision that needs to be reversed, and your RM review failing to see that is exactly the kind of RM Review decision that needs to be reversed. For the record, I have no position on the original RM question. I have no personal preference (never heard of the topic before), and don't know which meets COMMONNAME better. --]2] 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I am seriously considering taking this to arbcom unless the closure is reversed even if it is only so the community's will can be enacted. ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
			Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
	] (also commonly stylized as ]) is an American rock band from Los Angeles, formed in 1998
	*RM1: The result of the move request was: not moved. {{ping|Jenks24}} (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
	*RM2: The result of the proposal was moved. --{{ping|BDD}} (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
	*MR: Thirty Seconds to Mars – Endorse Close. - There is no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as Endorse Close. No action is required on the article title. -- {{ping|Jreferee}} (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
	On a re-reading of the above discussions I see: RM1 was clear. RM2 was a stretch to close this way, and definitely so if RM1 is considered. MR is a cautious "no consensus" that another admin may have read a rough consensus for Overturn or Relist.
			Unicivil
	*Is Jreferee at fault?
	#Could another another admin agree with the close? Yes Jreferee's close is defensible, and well defensible in isolation.
	#Did the closer have a COI or was he otherwise INVOLVED? No
	#Is there now so great a problem that it can't be worked on? No
	No, Jreferee is not at fault. This discussion does not really belong at ANI. But where?
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
	So, ways forward?
	:(1) Jreferee could unclose the MR so that it might receive further attention.
	:(2) A fresh RM could be intiated to reverse the close on the basis that there was never a consensus to move (undermining the standing of the MR process and returning to the old endless "If you don't like the RM result, start a new one").
	:(3) Do nothing (offensive to an ordinary editor who believes that both BDD and Jreferee erred).
	:(4) Initiate #2 as an RfC.
	:(5) Go to Arb Com (my view: in the absence of even an allegation of poor conduct by any user, they should see no role for arb com in this question).
			Contact on user page attempted
	I recommend #1, failing that then #4. --] (]) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	: Agreed. In fact, I suggested (1) on Jreferee's talk page. I suggest others encourage him as well. If he refuses to comply with our requests, I agree #4 is the best course of action. --]2] 23:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
	== Repeated ] violations ==
			Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
	I know people are tired of the Falklands units dispute, but I'm bringing this here because I really want it to stop.
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	] has spent the past four and a half years trying to push his POV on units on Falklands articles. His tactics have rarely reached above the standard of ], trying to force his POV by literally any means possible. I posted this evidence last night on the talk page currently under RFC ]. Given his comment today I think it wants greater attention.
			:Think this calls for a fierce ] slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a ] according to ], as this is just an ] and frankly, I don't see ''direct'' personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as {{tq|some diffs from the past few days}} are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	The RFC is, in and of itself, a clear example of ]. He claims that it is not allowed for WikiProjects to have their own style guides, even where they only cover matters irrelevant outside the topic. I've pointed out that many do - ] ] ] have all been brought up there. His insistence is that this must either be a Misplaced Pages-wide guideline or else a "failed proposal". He is ''ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community''.
			::Would I be the person to provide you with that {{tq|further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions}}? I did think that it would be more than a ], since that's for {{tq|one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior}} and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern ]. ] (]) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. ''Hob should know better'', and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to ]. But I would ''caution you'' about ] and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your , , and it seems like you're having a problem handling a ] and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
			:Furthermore it does appear that you might be ] because your attempts at ] for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. , , , , , , and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding ] and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards ]. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. ]&thinsp;] 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address ''unique issues'' as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. ({{tq|All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.}} ]) Thank you for your time and input.
			::] (]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: {{tq|trying to report other editors in bad faith}}. ] (]) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{OD}}
			{{collapse top|title=Minor discussion on use of ChatGPT in Lardle's user page}}
			@]: Jay brought something to my attention with . It looks like there is ] (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think {{!tq|hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason!}} I'm confused. This specific revision also ] about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. {{tq|Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism.}} I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, ], what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, '''not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT''', in your own words. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. ] (]) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Martin has spent the last year or so insisting that ] never had consensus. I suggest we look at the history:
			::look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @], you should familiarise yourself with ]. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. ] (]) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a ] slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{u|BarntToust}} You're being ] and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @], I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a '''formal warning''' or a ] slap is what needs to happen to Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{ping|BarntToust}} I would appreciate if you did not derail noticeboard threads by rudely browbeating participants about seemingly irrelevant(?) issues. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I think I'm gone from this board because of other work I'm focusing on regarding NIИ's ] and other stuff. Ad Hominems are what I did, and pointing out questionable behaviour (IE unexplained, self-contradictory AI slop text) from the user page of the currently 1 week-blocked Lardle who ] actually seemed pretty helpful, as literally everyone else in this trainwreck of a thread brought up unrelated stuff (Lardle's unrelated COVID conspiracy mongering) instead of discussing Hob. I do admit I went on tangents through this already derailed mega thread, but I'm among others not much worse for the derailing. I mean, how many ANI reports start with a fellow reporting "This guy is using the word 'bullshit' on talk pages" and end with that fellow getting a broadly construed TBAN that they violate mere moments after implementation? Yeah, I'm again, I'm gone to work on other stuff. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. ] (]) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are ] and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @], I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@], I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. for ''context'', in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. ] (]) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks! *curtsy* ] (]) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
			*The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. ] (]) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? ] (]) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? ] (]) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". ]] 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' ]? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word ''bullshit'', which is by no means banned from Misplaced Pages, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills"]] seems pretty temperate. And so on. ] &#124; ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
			:I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at ] where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. ] (]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	The page came into use in practice in July 2010. Neither Martin nor anyone else objected, though at that time it was rolled out across the WikiProject (a big change because the previous consensus was imperial-first everywhere). The single opponent (not Martin) opposed because he did not believe it would be implemented in good faith. In March 2011 Martin . In June 2011 Martin was citing it () to back up his edits. In October 2012 he redirected it, and was reverted some time later when someone noticed (his claimed premise was rejected by ] - also an apparent attempt at gaming). On 28 November 2012 he was . The very next day, . Martin treated the page as a consensus for well over two years - acted for all the world as though it was the standing consensus - and then one day he decided it never did. Stale? No, because Martin is still making that claim.
			:My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - ] (]) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			Hob Gadling failing to yield to ], apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. ] (]) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	I contend that the insistence that the page never achieved consensus is another example of ]. Again, ''ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community''. An involved admin said in reference to precisely this situation that "" (top part) - well I am asking for that sanction, as the disruption is still ongoing.
			:Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. ] (]) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	There are other examples. From on these topics under the disguise of misleading edit summaries to the argument that . I could go on and on.
			*'''Propose''' serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at ]. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) ] (]) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. ] (]) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Recuse{{smiley}} Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. ] (]) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to ] above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. ] (]) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*As a note, Hob Gadling without comment and has not responded here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	I bring this up here now because he now one again trying to that geography point. On ], his argument is that as geography is a science, geographic distances should not just be kilometres-first, but kilometres-only. And not just on Falklands articles or UK-related articles. By this interpretation, the article ] may not mention miles ''at all''. Is there anyone here who believes that this is what ] says or means - even in theory?
			*:Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. ] (]) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse top|Extended discussion}}
			{{od}}
			Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. ] (]) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	I contend that this is ''arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy'' and ''puriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy''. And based on this comment I contend that the gaming has not ended, and will not end with the moratorium proposed there.
			::IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things {{tq|bullshit}} and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is ]. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 ] + ] debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a ], that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "{{!tq|fuckin' wanker}}" because they botched a ]. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::When ] shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells ] that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. ] (]) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? ] (]) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::So, to recap, ]: It's not ''what'' it is said that causes problems, it's '''''how''''' it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to ]. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions {{tq|bullshit}} is not the right thing to do. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. ] (]) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Eh, you can say "That's ] and ] and does not constitute ] as the subject is discussed in ]". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their ] and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work ''isn't'' shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience.
			:::::::::This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. ] (]) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who {{tq|herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest}}<ref> Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/</ref> This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400</ref> ] (]) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
			It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing ] misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as ], and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as ]. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	We have seen this sort of gaming continually from Martin on these articles the last four and a half years. This has been massively damaging to the topic. We cannot continue like this. Given that Martin will not stop on his own, he must be stopped by admins.
			:Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. ] (]) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I ask for Martinvl to be topic banned, such that he is not allowed to add, modify, discuss or otherwise edit or have anything to do with units of measure on Falklands-related articles, or the rules that govern them, in order to prevent the disruption that this continual gaming causes. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
			:*I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) {{tq|bullshit}} to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that ''that'' was what led Lardlewarmers to try and , a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward ] situation. --] (]) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:This looks like sour grapes from not getting the wished-for consensus about metric units at the Falkland Islands, spillover from the above discussion: ]. I don't think you have a strong enough case to ban the guy who keeps you from getting your way. ] (]) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
			:*:There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "]" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to ] and stop treating ]. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a ''chronic'' and ''ongoing'' habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (]) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. ] (]) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed ''I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type''. As the Alien above said, you '''{{tq|Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning.}}''' now ]. ]&thinsp;] 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to ], the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the ] contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ], as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the ''content'', not attacking the person (]). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.] (]) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::For the record I do ''agree with you'' that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been ] you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing ] or ], rather we depend on ] and ] to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to {{tq|steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person}}. However, that is not what I read in that . Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! ]&thinsp;] 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (]) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.] (]) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. ]&thinsp;] 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Misplaced Pages: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Misplaced Pages over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a {{tq|lesser offense}}. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Which wished-for consensus do you think I want? I was perfectly happy to leave it with the status quo, the consensus for ] which Martin suddenly and out-of-the-blue insisted never existed. I'm not entirely happy with the way the vote is going there, but the best thing for the article is for the whole thing to end. Now. Rather than in two or three years' time when after I or others have come here six or seven times to point out that the same thing is still going on, after who knows how many more editors have been driven away and after who knows how much improvement to the article will have been prevented.
			:Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. ] (]) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I believe it is clear from Martin's comments that even with an (apparently toothless) moratorium we're not done here because Martin will continue to try and game the rule being proposed.
			::It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of ''this specific'' pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. ] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::What you are describing is a different idea: ]. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. {{tq|the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ]}} {{tq|The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.}}(]) ] (]) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. ] (]) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Beyond what @] said, ''for all parties'', it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil ]. ]&thinsp;] 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Indeed. ] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should ''not'' be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. ] (]) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from ] or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - ] (]) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. ] (]) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I am in the diffs.
			:::::I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - ] (]) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: {{tq|Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.}}] ] (]) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. ] (]) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This is a deeply silly comment. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 01:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse top|title=Extended discussion}}
			:::::How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See ], also please see ] if you logged out just to make {{tq|problematic edits}} here.... ]&thinsp;] 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@]: Okay let me say it another way...
			:::::::* never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed.
			:::::::* since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted.
			:::::::* in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds.
			:::::::* when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history.
			:::::::But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @] has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . ]&thinsp;] 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. ] (]) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a ''serious allegation'', yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? ''However, '''if''' you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry.'' (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) ]&thinsp;] 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits.
			::::::::Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. ]&thinsp;] 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. ]&thinsp;] 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. ] (]) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of {{tq|I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times}} by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. ]&thinsp;] 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Please read ]. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. ] (]) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. ]&thinsp;] 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. ] (]) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
			{{reflist}}
	::The only reason we have to keep on having this discussion is because Martin keeps insisting on bringing it up. And whenever he brings it up it's with yet another ruse to try and ] the system. Do you think that these articles are best off with endless discussion on units of measure, where there is practically no trust to be found because one editor keeps on gaming the system? I don't. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
			===Send to AE?===
	:::I think FALKLANDSUNITS should not exist. ] (]) 00:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
			Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to ] since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::So, in your opinion, does that make it OK to repeatedly ] in this area? Bear in mind that ] itself is one of the few agreed rules that he has ''not'' managed to game here. His focus is on removing it and using instead something more easily-gamable, like ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 06:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
			:Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
	*First off: I have just full-protected ] for 2 weeks because the editors can't seem to get together and discuss. That being said, I believe outside views are necessary. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 22:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
			:That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - ] (]) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	*If ] is redundant to the existing ], then should it not be MfDed? If it contradicts the MOS, then it shouldn't be valid either... ] ] 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
			::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*As far as I see, it ''is'' redundant to the MOS. I linked to ] in the still open thread, where it covers the same things as WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, which is where the absurdity comes in. There is some sort of pro-<insert your units of preference>-comes-first thing going on, which some editors are trying to get locked in stone as a policy for articles relating the Falklands only. Ridiculous. ] (]) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::It has to be absolutely prescriptive because there is so much ] going on. If we could trust editors to edit within the spirit of ] then there would not be a problem with not having any additional rule. But we can't, so there is. The point of this ANI is to put us in a position where we ''can'' trust editors to edit within the spirit of ], so that the impact of the change is lessened. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::FYI ] is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. ] (]) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
			:::::It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - ] (]) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. ] (]) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	This seems to be about a proposal under discussion at ] in which Martinvl made the clever support of a motion to get rid of ], while interpreting ] in a novel way that most other people voicing their support think is incorrect. Due to this, Kahastok has decided to oppose the proposal even though it is based on his own statement. Blocking or banning anyone or everyone involved for such a trivial cause seems overkill. (The argument has been added to ] - and not by me.) Adding voices to the proposal seems simpler and more likely to keep well meaning editors. --] (]) 16:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
			::While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why ] is policy.
			::Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. ]. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. ] (]) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:<s>I '''second''' to motion to bring this to ].</s> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) -- Open thread below. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers===
	:FWIW I was already opposed for lack of enforcement, a point that I have always made clear is needed if we're ever going to stop this from continually coming up. If there's supposed to be a moratorium, that's a waste of time if it's going to be ignored just as soon as Martin decides he doesn't like the rule proposed, and starts the entire argument back up again. And, based on experience, he will find an excuse - almost certainly one that violates ]. In the past we had people coming back to the page every three weeks (for well over a year) claiming that they wanted to see if consensus had changed this time. Admins did nothing about it then either.
			{{atop|status=Topic ban imposed|1=By the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, {{u|Lardlegwarmers}} is ] from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}}
			A cursory look through this account's contributions has me convinced that they ought not to be contributing to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory pages, widely construed. More generally, it seems they are using Misplaced Pages as a ] to promote a lot of what I would deem "anti-establishment" claims which necessarily run right up against the ] remit of our encyclopedia. In fact, they are close to being a ] in this regard. Topic ban from American Politics might help reorient their problematic proclivities.
	:Frankly, the way this conversation is going demonstrates why simply hoping he'll improve this time and saying call in the admins if he doesn't is futile and why we need explicit enforcement provisions. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
	:*You do realize that the only other person who supports the same viewpoint as you is a community banned sockmaster? Perhaps that should show you that you may be wrong as well? I'm inclined to agree with Martinvl if he says FALKLANDSUNITS is redundant/invalid/whatever - because it is. A few people here have voiced the opinion that FALKLANDSUNITS should go. And your accusations of ] seem to be lacking in evidence, support, and seem to be incorrect as well. ] ] 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
			] (]) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Actually, no, that's not true. There are enough of us who've had enough of this debate, and enough of us who have a problem with the attempts at forcing the point. I am far from the the only one who said that this required a moratorium, and I am not exactly the only one who opposed in the poll, on the basis that it was not strong enough against ].
			*'''Oppose''' - Seems unnecessary and retaliatory. I say that even considering Hob Gadling a friend of mine. ] (]) 19:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' The user is basically a ] who looking at their editing history, their basically sole purpose to edit Misplaced Pages is to aggressively POVPUSH about lableak on talkpages, a topic they can't even edit the main page of because they don't have ECP. They're not the only offender, but they are major one. Their contributions are only raising the heat and frankly do not improve the topic area. ] (]) 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This is not a SPA. I’ve been editing on Misplaced Pages for a month or two, focusing some of my attention on the lab leak hypothesis because the article itself would benefit from a more balanced presentation of the topic, especially the broader social and political implications of the theory, based on reliable sources. For example, the article's suggestion that the lab leak hypothesis foments racism is simply not verified. Politicians and extremists have taken advantage of the hypothesis for their own reasons, but it's otherwise a viable scientific hypothesis. (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) I've been on the talk page helping to sift through a lot of the original research and the sources (a lot of them) that don't actually say what people are alleging they say. Also, I have been trying to find some kind of consensus for filling in the conspicuous gaps where there ought to be information about notable non-scientific events like coverage of the notable U.S. Congress committee that focused on the lab leak idea and made major headlines in the media--and it's completely omitted from the article. I've worked to clean up the articles where they use journalistic sources to verify biomedical information. And I'm dealing with helping to sort out this chronic name-calling where there should be civil dialogue. In a separate topic, I've been working on fixing an obvious BLP violation where the article talk page consensus might be showing a bit of resistance to the site's policy itself. ] (]) 10:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' pro-fringe single purpose accounts are bad for the project. ] (]) 19:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - What exactly is the reason to do this here? If jps wishes to file a vague ANI complaint against LLW (a new editor), there is a legitimate process for that which would look a lot less like witness intimidation. - ] (]) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::It is disappointing that you feel that instead of actually discussing genuine content issues, we should have to spend our entire time arguing over units of measure interminably, watching Martin try every trick in the book, and a few that are not, to enforce his POV.
			::Your own POV editing is openly in question as well, particularly considering on your talk page with LLW. Statements like this "{{tq|If you are interested in what the FBI knows but can't say, the next six months are expected to bring the release of a great deal more information. Stock up on popcorn I guess. If you want to improve the lab leak article, I don't know what to tell you. As you've noticed there are some deeply rotten things going on and the admins seem afraid to step in}}" very heavily indicates your own POV inclinations regarding scientific topics. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Note to closer: Palpable is another lableak POVPUSHING SPA. They only made about 70 edits between their account creation in 2006 and 2022, when their editing shifted to be basically solely arguing about lableak on talkpages for over 2 years at this point. ] (]) 20:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think you'd find it's a little more complicated than that, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Also, witness intimidation. - ] (]) 20:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::"Witness intimidation" 😂 so are we now a court of law? His honor, ] is our ]? ] tells us you are an ] that has ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::] is not witness intimidation, nor is this a court. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm happy to discuss my background and motivations over email with an admin who has a record of neutrality regarding FTN. - ] (]) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This is at ANI, so it should be discussed at ANI. "I'll only discuss it in secret" is not how things are played here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Noted, thanks. - ] (]) 05:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' They have openly stated, as I linked above, their purposes of pushing information that the scientific community is "trying to cover up". Their POV pushing is blatant and reinforced by them being an SPA in this topic area. A topic ban would be a potential stopgap to hopefully have them actually become a proper constructive editor, rather than just outright banning them for their clear ] activities. So, if anything, a topic ban is much more merciful than the alternative. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Silverseren is heavily involved in the underlying dispute. I have never said that there is "information that the scientific community is 'trying to cover up', just that there was never a thorough investigation and the debate is ongoing or inconclusive (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) (https://www.wissenschaftstehtauf.ch/Inside_the_Virus-Hunting_Nonprofit_at_the_Center_of_the_Lab-Leak_Controversy_Vanity_Fair.pdf), that we ought to remove or attribute the sources we use whose authors have a direct relationship with the facility that the theory implicates (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/ "Shi herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest") and that we won't be including in the article any of the less prestigious, primary sources (e.g., https://www.jpands.org/vol29no1/orient.pdf) nor the non-peer reviewed sources (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VC/VC00/20230711/116185/HHRG-118-VC00-20230711-SD005.pdf - a U.S. defense laboratory that sequenced the virus and https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=23853f40-72f5-443a-8f87-89af7fce1a92 - a Bayesian analysis) in support of a lab leak scenario. ] (]) 10:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Support''' tban from COVID articles. The editor has ]ed themselves, it seems. SPA consumate. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I '''support''' in the first place a topic ban from Covid-19 broadly construed, but will also support a tban from COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory in case that narrower ban gets more traction here. ] &#124; ] 10:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC).
			:@], Misplaced Pages being "]" in this context just means that we use the most prestigious source material available to verify our claims. It doesn't tell us to suppress verifiable information just because it would "challenge the status quo" in society. By the way, I am not saying that my account exists "to challenge the status quo". I'm just correcting what might be a misrepresentation on your part as to what that document prescribes for us. I have always used high-quality sources in any of my edits to the main-space articles and used the talk pages to express my concerns about unverified claims. ] (]) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' I fail to see how this addresses Hob Gadling's chronic and intractable behavioral issues. ] (]) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' – weak support for TBAN from COVID-19 overall, strong support for COVID-19 Origins, broadly construed (to include Gain of Function research, Fauci, WIV, etc) - This editor has repeatedly cast ASPERSIONS , has stated several times over that they intend to edit in a POV way to 'correct the biases that are in favor of the democratic party' , has shown a very poor understanding of policy (e.g. trying to advocate for a POVFORK , saying a discussion shouldn't be closed because no one could truly understand how complicated it is ) and a poor ability to assess the content of sources where they have a clear bias, repeatedly hitting others over the head with that ''failure to understand'' (e.g. ]/] ). I think they could probably benefit from editing a less contentious area of Misplaced Pages. (and yes I have participated in some of these discussions involving LLW) —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Shibbolethink is heavily involved in the dispute and misinterprets as bludgeoning my consistent opposition to their prolific use of faulty citations. The examples of citations they provided here are a perfect case study in what I had assumed was a good faith misunderstanding but am now convinced must be intentional mis-attribution. None of the links they provided substantiate anything they’re saying. ] (]) 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' – COVID-19 broadly construed. I originally suggested trouts. But Lardlegwarmer’s responses in this section have convinced me that this user has problems with NPOV, DUE, and RS that continue even on AN/I. Perhaps six months editing elsewhere will be of value. And yes, I have been involved. ] (]) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Consensus on a ban proposal is not supposed to include editors that are involved in the underlying dispute. Why are these accounts casting votes?] (]) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Says who? Everyone can comment here. ] (]) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::They can comment but the authority to ban comes from a “consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute” so I’m assuming that means they don’t get a vote(?) ] ] (]) 02:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Actually, I think six of the !votes are from editors who have posted to a Covid article, including two of the three opposes. I don't know about the other pages you listed as I've never heard of most of them. I am involved in one of the seven pages you listed in your filing. But I don't see how I'm involved in the {{tq|underlying dispute}} you have with Hob. The closer can take this all into account. ] (]) 12:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Lardlegwarmers may be right. Palpable's Oppose !vote, in particular, reflects involvement in the Covid lab leak dispute and should be disregarded. ] (]) 22:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::The criteria of having simply posted to a COVID article does not serve as a threshold for being in a dispute with lard leg warmers. If a vote is to be disregarded for its caster's fulfillment of being involved in a dispute with lard's POV-pushing, then a talk page discussion, diffs should be linked for certain proof. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Echoing @]'s statement. I understand how it can be seen as problematic (also why I'm not voting), but that's not the standard. Furthermore, if it was, that would equally disqualify @] and @]. (It shouldn't, just to be clear, but just making sure that's documented if we're going down this road.) ] (]) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Covid-19 T-ban. Their behaviour here smacks of "Them vs. everybody". ] (]) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I understand your sentiment, but what am I expected to do when all these editors are directly invoking my name and mischaracterizing my behavior and using sanction-gaming to push me out of a contentious discussion? ] (]) 02:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Surprised the CIVILPOV-pushing edit requests flooding my COVID watchlist this past month didn't result in a tban earlier. ] (]) 03:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Well it would have spoiled all the fun, since a CIVILPOV guy is apparently fair game to use as target practice for ad hominems in the talk page ] (]) 10:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' given the behavior in this area of editing. And before you reply, Lardle, I suggest you read ]. You don't need to comment on every !vote here.
	:::I must admit, I have no idea what you think ''would'' violate ]. It seems to me that if repeatedly Wikilawyering and deliberately twisting the word of policy in attempt to force his POV - directly against the spirit of those same policies - is not ] then nothing is. Let us not pretend that Martin is not an editors of many years' standing and who is well acquainted with the nuances of policy.
			:— <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			=== Proposals re Hob Gadling and civility ===
	:::I find the fact that you make the attack about sockpuppets demonstrates the weakness of your point - it is ''ad hominem'', and has nothing to do with anything in particular. The fact that your community banned sockmaster is a community banned sockmaster does not mean that he does not occasionally make good points. While we might revert the edits of the banned, we must always look toward the good of the encyclopædia, and it may well be that the good of the encyclopædia means accepting that even sockpuppets can make good and relevant points that, if they were supported by anyone else, would be significant here. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::*Rubbish on several counts there. There is '''absolutely no need for ] to exist''' - it either is superfluous to the MOS, or it goes against it; your accusations of ], which are STILL lacking in any provided evidence, are not relevant as to whether FALKLANDSUNITS is superfluous or not. We do not write guidelines just to make one editor's actions invalid, that would be pointless. ANI is not for content issues anyway. And cut out the "ad hominem" bullshit - the only editor who has come to ANI and who has made the same points as you have is a community-banned sockmaster. Ergo, no one really supports your desire to topic ban this user, and certainly not as strongly as you, or the community-banned sockmaster, do. I could equally state that your opening of multiple ANI threads is an attempt to game the system, or forcing the point, or Wikilawyering, and the fact that they're present on this page or recent archives is stronger evidence than anything you've provided. And community-banned users can NEVER contribute to any debate, as that defeats the entire fucking point of a community ban, and their comments should be reverted the moment that the account/IP is found to be that community-banned user... Either provide evidence to show that he is truly violating ], or drop the stick, and stop filing ANI threads willy-nilly. ] ] 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{userlinks|Hob Gadling}}
	::::Now that's definitely ''ad hominem''.
			There are concerns about ] regarding this editor's behaviour. Should a ] be in order? A ]? Or an ] when addressing other users? The community will decide.
	::::Let's start with the basics. How many ANI threads do you think I have opened here recently? I can't find any before this one within the last six months. So far as I can tell, the only other ANI that I have started in the last year was ] in December 2012, in which I objected to an editor disruptively reassigning Yugoslavia to Serbia on articles about sporting events. It seems to me that this is hardly "filing ANI threads willy-nilly". If you believe I am wrong, please prove it with diffs or links to the archives. If you cannot, please desist from throwing around wild accusations.
			<span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I have provided evidence to demonstrate my concerns here. Read my first comment and you'll see plenty. Do you not think that suddenly and out-of-the-blue insisting that a consensus that has held for three years was never consensus is not gaming? Do you not think that trying to force a totally novel interpretation of the MOS, that is clearly against the spirit of that rule and the application of the rule on all other articles, is gaming? As I say, I am at a loss to think what you might consider gaming since these would seem to fall perfectly into the conduct described at ].
			:<s>'''Support 1 month block''' – Hob needs an ultimatum, and the behaviour, even though they're right much of the time, is unacceptable per ].</s> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This feels ]. ] (]) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse top|extended discussion}}
			:::Sure it would be. As ] once ]: "Consequences." <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::When ] shot ] in '']'', was that punishment? Or was that the ''consequence'' of Bill Skarsgard acting in a contentious manner and engaging in general buffoonery, conducting himself way out of place and S(crew)A(round)+F(ind)O(ut)? You conflate "punishment" with there being consequences for tomfoolery. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::We're discussing this on Misplaced Pages, not John Wick: Chapter 4, so I'm not sure how that has any relevance.<br>Also, that sounds exactly like a punishment to me. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm disappointed you can't understand ]. 😔 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I suppose that, say, per example, a ] who edits their respective topics is "punished" when the consequences (block) start to kick in for their general bothersomeness? Look, we can have a whole schpeel about what the ], or we can subvert expectations and be really straightforward about a subtle subject. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
			*'''Oppose block''' I don't think this is a sanctionable level of incivility. I'd be ok with sending them a trout. ] (]) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose block''' Hob is a long term contributor most often engaged in the thankless task of keeping fringe nuttery from overtaking a range of obscure articles. I don't see a history of problematic incivility that would warrant a block. ] (]) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support block''' as per BarntToust. Over the years I've seen the editor be rude and borderline bully, if not outright. It doesn't reflect well on Wiki.] (]) 18:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{anchor|HOB edit restriction}}
			* A 1 month block is not likely to change long-term behavior, and would only amount to punishment. That's why we don't do temporary blocks in cases like this. Rather, something is needed that will force Hob to adjust their behavior if they want to continue to edit. An indef block would do it, but seems over the top. One alternative would be an ]. What about:
			:{{tqb|Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months on ].}}
			:Of course Hob would be free to point out that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is ], or anything else related to the editorial process, but they would be prohibited from commenting on other editors' ''ability'' to come to such conclusions for themselves.
			{{collapse top|some of the diffs above to which this would apply|bg=LightGray}}
			{{collapse bottom}}
			:I think this would solve a lot of the civility problems we see in the diffs. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Should we apply the same strict civility standards to ] (]) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse top|extended discussion}}
			:::]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No. ] (]) 19:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"I am your father." <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::General complaints with the direction of the project and bemoaning that we ain't a ] don't exactly scream "ur contribs and opinions are BS" like they do w/ Hob. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I just think it's a little rich for someone whose semi-retirement comment bemoans "incompetent editors" at some length to be the person to propose a specific instruction that another editor be {{tq|prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities}}. Glass houses, stones, all that. ] (]) 19:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yeah. I'm glad they didn't direct this at anyone specific, though. I've seen people complain that the ] is misappropriating funds to be a charity instead of a web hosting organisation, but long my five years of editing here have been since I've seen anyone with the audacity to take it directly to ] or the accounts of the ]. (I mean, for the most of the years as an IP it's been semi-protected but hey ain't seen anything about it in the Signpost). <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I mean, as long as nobody is being directly addressed in ''any'' scenario of any complaint, whether its Foundation business or Meritocracy grievances or words about the intellectual capacities of editors with opposing viewpoints, and its kept broad and generalised about the ''overall'' direction of the project, it's like trying to hold recourse against an editor for having a "I think Democrats are slandering ] on Misplaced Pages" userbox vs. the editor actually going out in the wild to ] a Democrat over their position in a discussion on ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Unfortunately for this case, there's diffs galore of Hob going out of their way to call others' opinions and mental capacities bullshit and dull, and thus we are here. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
			:::Oh I deal with the same problems Hob does, believe me. Many around here do. ] is a thing, and yes, I personally believe it should be enforced much more vigorously. But no, I generally don't comment on other editors' intellectual capabilities in discussions. Most editors do not. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at my user talk. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 20:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::And those words, editors, are the summary of the conclusion drawn at the above "extended discussion" CT. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 20:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose block''' Obviously punitive. We don't do that. ] 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Strongly '''oppose block''' per my ]. ] &#124; ] 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC).
			*<s>'''Support editing restriction''' ].</s> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' as I've seen worse stuff going on than "{{tq|bullshit}}". <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose''' any sanctions on Hob Gadling - I'm not seeing any clear sanctionable misbehavior here. ] ] 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Punitive. ] (]) 21:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Just not seeing it as sanctionable. As an aside, the four (count them four) collapses in this filing are an example of why I prefer AE. ] (]) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong oppose''' per Pppery, O3000 etc. Tired of efforts to sanction good editors based on concepts of civility which are overly formalistic and don't duly assign weight to context (in my opinion, of course). ---] ] 23:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''- I also see no obvious justification for a block. ] ] 10:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' formal warning or 1 week block as per discussion above. It now also looks that there has been some 'coordinated editing', with all editors aligned to one POV on Covid lab leak page coming out to place ban on OP for reporting this uncivil behaviour. This was bad ban by {{ping|The Bushranger}} who failed to recognise malign influence of small but well coordinated group of POV editors, who damage the project. ] (]) 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Or, "unconfirmed conspiracies are ] and there's nothing more to it than that", y'know. Have you even read the screed Lard leg warmers added to their page? I mean, seriously? ] says that this is ], but, y'know, fringe is fringe, and if being a "small but well coordinated group of POV editors" is what you get for adhering to veracity, then Lord help us. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|malign influence of small but well coordinated group of POV editors}} And you're complaining about another editor's uncivil behavior? Okay... ] (]) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yes, I am referring to them as group, and I am claiming here, on administrator talk page, '''which is for these complaints''', that they are coordinated, most likely '''off-wik'''i. The vote to ban is not truly representative of community. ] (]) 07:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose Block''' - send trouts instead. sometimes getting exasperated in a project is different than actual bad-faith edits. if a long-term pattern of incivility, more punitive measure coudl be warranted. diffs brought up don't seem that bad, though they could have been more civil. ] (]) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*could '''support apaugasma's suggestion'''. seems useful. ] (]) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: {{tq|"Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense"}} is far too vague for an editing restriction. The problem is "including but not limited to"; if the restriction ended after the word "capabilities" you might have something you could work with (though I would still oppose it). ] 22:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Isn't everyone prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::: Not necessarily. If I am editing, say, a scientific article, and am forever having to revert an editor who is making errors because they don't understand the subject, it is not a violation of civility to point out that they need to go away and learn about it ''before'' trying to edit again. The rather woolly restriction above would stop someone from doing even that. ] 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Black Kite is right on point. Problem is Hob can't do that without highly personal comments of people not being , lacking , being prone to believe in views and , etc. Also, I'm fairly confident that if Hob were restricted from pointing out incompetence, someone else would do so in a civil way. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 15:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::This is why the editing restriction is appealable, this editing restriction is not necessary on regular editors, but appears necessary for them. ] (]) 09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Clearly not sanctionable, and hardly even uncivil, especially when viewed in the context of the discussions. At most maybe awarding a barn-trout (is there such a thing?) that celebrates that he didn't actually loose his cool and become uncivil, while at the same time, being rather offputting and feeding the POV-troll. ]&thinsp;] 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong oppose''' per Bish. The day we start punishing good contributors for not having a constantly saintly response to awful ] POV-pushers is the day this project goes to hell. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 12:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We do all the time, our civility policies do not care if you are right in a discussion or good contributors. You are way off the mark in your general assessment. ] (]) 14:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Indeed, it's even ''part of the civility policy'' (]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I'm well familiar with civility guidelines and that being right doesn't exclude you from them. The point is that we should not mete out sanctions, let alone a ''month block'' in situations where there is an occasional display of imperfection when responding to POV pushing - especially considering per the comment above what is being replied to. If this was a genuine ] breach I'd support sanctions but I have not seen anything from Hob above that meets that. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 23:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Again you seem to be factoring in them being right with your justification because it was responding to POV pushing. Also no one expects perfection, just to do better. The bar is already so low, lets not encourage limbo. ] (]) 01:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''By all means ]'''. We should all strive to be nicer and not personalize. Believe me, I understand that it is hard in these contexts. ] (]) 13:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposed Hob Gadling Editing Restriction by Apaugasma ===
	::::] documents a consensus. It does not merely repeat ]: rather, it makes it clear that ] is to be interpreted prescriptively on Falklands articles. Even if the current proposal on ] goes through, it will still be useful in documenting the consensus for a prescriptive interpretation of ], and also documenting the consensus that the Falklands are UK-related for the purposes of ]. Both are points that editors have tried to game in the past. There are lots and lots of projects out there that have their own style guides, and there is no reason why the Falklands should not be allowed to as well, documenting points that are relevant only to that particular project.
			{{userlinks|Hob Gadling}}
	::::Finally, it would be exceedingly foolish to dogmatically dismiss any comment without considering its contents - even if the point was made by a sockpuppet. There is no policy that says you are not allowed to agree with somebody who raises a good point, sockpuppet or not. To take an extreme example, if a sockpuppet points out that a negative claim in a BLP is unsourced and unlikely, we aren't going to leave it unchanged just because it was a sockpuppet who said it. Trying to argue ] is unhelpful and not exactly likely to calm tempers. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::And what if "consensus" goes against policy? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{tqb|Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months at ].}}
	::::::It doesn't. ] provides for a mix of units and ] mirrors that mix. The list of units applied is the same. So it isn't an issue. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 06:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
			Hob Gadling is permitted to comment that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is ], or anything else related to the editorial process, but prohibited from commenting on other editors' ''ability'' to come to such conclusions for themselves, enforceable with blocks. ] (]) 09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' Great contribution is not a get-out-of-jail free card from ] & ], complying with this editing restriction should not be difficult. ] (]) 09:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::That doesn't answer the question. What if "consensus" ''does'' go against policy? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
			:this is already being debated above. thought we generally shouldnt make multiple RFCs in a single section like this anyways? ] (]) 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::If it does not answer the question, it is because the question is not relevant to our current position. Ultimately, it depends on the precise circumstances of your hypothetical situation. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	Note that there are two unanswered requests for clarification relating to a suspected conflict of interest wrt metric/imperial/customary systems of units to this editor at ] and ]. The answer to those may have a bearing on this discussion. ] (]) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
			===Suspected off-wiki coordination in COVID-19 lab leak topic===
	:Given how often he quotes them as a source, it is clear that Martin is well aware of the ], and it is blindingly obvious from his editing that he favours metrication.
			It appears there is off-wiki coordination between POV editors going back many years in this topic. It is easy to spot this because complaints of non-neutral wording and unbalanced sourcing are frequent over years and from varied editors, while responses always the same and from same group of editors, often ending up in administrator talk boards like this resulting in quick ban by passing admin unaware of this dynamic. Calls for neutrality rarely ask for more than slightly more neutral wording (like not using wikivoice to describe "misplaced suspicion" in lab leak theory due to outbreak's proximity to lab ), and responses always cursory and blunted, and often even uncivil, which is why OP started this discussion. It common for these editors to immediately start threatening sanctions as soon someone comes near topic asking for more neutral coverage, making it impossible for progress without RFC on every tiny point. It is required for administrators to review coordinated editing in this topic. ] (]) 07:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Let be caution you to not draw undue attention to yourself in these discussions, not because there is some grand conspiracy, coordination or cabal at work. Rather because it will cause people to being to look into some of your questionable editing behaviors. This is especially true as it seems like you're doubling-down on your position shared with a now TBAN'ed user, while casting grand aspirations of off-wiki coordination. However, if you have an actual accusation to present formally, please start a new section and be prepared to ''provide evidence'' (especially in the form of diffs) and not simply broad claims. Without such, there is no more a claim you might have to editors coordinating to work against your position, than might be said of editors who you align with that have been blocked or banned from FT topics. Please take a moment and look over ] and let me again caution you against boomerang, which LW learned the hard way. And lets you be tempted like Palpable above, this is not a threat, but please take it as intended, which is a friendly, AGF, suggestion to consider how you proceed from here, as your self-perspective of the situation does not reflect the actual reality of the situation. ]&thinsp;] 08:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:But I find it difficult to see what difference it makes if a biased editor happens to support an organisation that shares that POV. ]. Though he has been known to cite UKMA arguments as fact (John Wilkins is still prominently featured as a major force behind the metric system - an important UKMA argument because they're trying to defeat the notion that the metric system is un-British - despite ]), I cannot see Martin's citing the UKMA as a source as "getting the word out" type activity and thus illegitimate under ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			:It might actually be {{tqq|easy to spot this}} because we're all so very, very used to the same old song and dance from POV-pushers by this point, can spot them coming from a mile away, and know that "neutrality" is the last thing they actually want. ] explains this very well - as does ]: {{tqq|There is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it}}. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I think it is important to state that ] and ] are not the same.
			::It would be easy to spot if you read dispute where there is actual RfC where consensus (so far) clearly leans in the way of the editor you call POV pusher. Perhaps it was too much for me to ask that you read the diffs properly instead of taking the complaint on face value, but I expect more of you as an admin. ] (]) 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* Falklandsunits says: In general, put metric units first and follow with imperial and US customary units as appropriate. '''Where this would create significant inconsistency with the exceptions to this rule noted below, put imperial units first and follow with metric and US customary units. Articles should be internally consistent with respect to the units used in a given context.'''
			:::If you could provide diffs or links for your claim of off-wiki collusion that would help. Circumstantial evidence and asking editors to read between the lines isn't very useful. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*MOSNUM is descriptive: "In non-science UK-related articles... imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including...miles..."
			::::Are you being facetious? Off-wiki coordination is by definition, off-wiki, and diffs are not possible. This is an administrator noticeboard diffs are not the only admissible form of evidence. ] (]) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*FALKLANDSUNITS is prescriptive: "For geographical distances onshore (including coastlines), use statute miles or yards and follow with kilometres or metres"
			:::::{{tq|This is an administrator noticeboard}}, clearly, yes it is, that and that only. The evidence required to prove off-wiki collusion should be sent to ], because off-wiki business can't be brought here because, many reasons, though to start, posting reddit links and discord convos usually constitutes a vio of ]. So get off of this noticeboard with problems it is unable to address, and see ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*There is currently a vote at ] to decide whether to follow MOSNUM or FALKLANDSUNITS. As editors here have expressed concern about FALKLANDSUNITS they might be interested to contribute to that decision-making process.
			::::::Also, should such evidence exists, don't just open an AE case (again, ]) but rather contact the arbitration committee privately. ] (]) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:] (]) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::::Coming to ANI about off-wiki collusion compares to a person calling a ] when their plumbing is clogged. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{small|]. ]] 22:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			::::::::Aha. I refer to calling a welder when plumbing is ''clogged'', not really installed or replaced. Usually when I call the local plumber to unclog my master bathroom toilet, a minimal amount of sparks are produced during their work. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 23:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If you have evidence of off-wiki coordination this should be sent privately to the arbitration committee. If you don't have evidence you never should have opened this thread anyway. Either way the right thing to do is to withdraw this accusation from this venue. ] (]) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You apparently only read "diffs" and not "or links". Unsubstantiated ] shouldn't be anywhere, let alone ANI. If you have any proof take it to ARBCOM per Simonm223. If you don't have ''actual'' proof then you should retract your claim. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::So... are ya gonna cast ASPERSIONS or are you gonna send Arbitrarion some links to, idk, discord servers, IRC rooms, anything? Bans—they're what happens when an editor has, nearly a fetish, for trying to include information—at every possible turn—that goes against medical professionals' standpoints. Consensus in the scientific community establishes an idea and discounts another, Misplaced Pages covers the major, non-fringe outlooks on subjects. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 11:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Don't play devil's advocate for POV-pushers. You get nowhere with it. Unless you have '''damning''' proof that editors are banding together behind-the-curtains in illicit fashion, I encourage you to strike some text using <nowiki><s></nowiki> {{!tq|your unwarranted remarks here}} <nowiki></s></nowiki> <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The first point simply isn't true, unless you interpret "significant inconsistency" in the way Michael does, which is to say that any article that is not rigorously metric or rigorously imperial is significantly inconsistent. Even if you use miles once in the first paragraph and Celsius once in the twenty-fourth, with no other measurements. ] does not advocate such an interpretation, and makes it clear that in non-scientific UK-related articles a mixture (reflecting British usage and based on the style guide of Britain's ]) is OK.
			* I suggest that {{noping|IntrepidContributor}} should either provide evidence to Arbcom or immediately withdraw this accusation. Either way this topic of discussion should be closed as inappropriate to AN/I. ] (]) 13:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Boomerang'''. ] has repeatedly made aspersions and assumptions of bad faith against many editors, both here and in the , none of which are supported by ''any'' evidence whatsoever. Making such baseless accusations the focus of an ANI subsection is a waste of editors' time, and when combined with their disruptive actions elsewhere (''e.g''., ) it indicates that a time-out is required. ] (]) 15:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I want to give them the chance to withdraw their accusation before calling for a boomerang. But if they refuse to do so or just disappear from the thread with the comments out there then, yeah, it's probably that time. ] (]) 15:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::We now have , which demonstrates that ] has chosen to triple- (quadruple?) down on their evidence-free aspersions against multiple editors. ] (]) 15:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::OK that was doubling down after they got clear instructions about how to handle it from more than one editor here. ] (]) 15:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Instructions? What are you? ] (]) 18:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Sorry for not being clear. By "time-out" I mean a '''topic ban''' from COVID-19, broadly construed. I can understand why the repeated, evidence-free aspersions and assumptions of bad faith, which have yet to be withdrawn, justify an indef. I just don't see how this approach is a benefit to the project. ] (]) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Boomerang'''. If it was just this out-of-pocket subsection, I would agree with {{noping|Simonm223}} on giving some time of day, but since Intrepid's ] have been pervasive throughout this report according to {{noping|JoJo Anthrax}}'s motion, and also considering that they ], a boomerang needs to happen so this improper conduct can be addressed. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*There was ] three years ago. If IntrepidContributor has any evidence they should go to Arbcom for ]. Otherwise, they should retract and ] their aspersions here ASAP. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 15:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Boomerang''' After being advised that they should privately contact the arbitration committee this editor instead just spammed the accusation into the comments of an AE filing about someone who shares their POV. This is inappropriate and disruptive. ] (]) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Boomerang''' IntrepidContributor was pointed to ] eleven days ago in this filing and knows what it means. This is yet more worthy of a BOOM than the OP. ] (]) 15:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'd like to give IntrepidContributor one last chance to strike their comment, otherwise I don't see how this can end anyway but badly for them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It is worth bearing in mind that Michael used to go around adding metric measurements to Falklands articles that were otherwise entirely imperial-first, and then use MOSNUM's then-rule on consistency as an excuse to convert the entire article to metric. For a while Michael and Martin were engaged in adding any metric measurement they could find to any Falklands-related article they could find - frequently not even bothering to put the measurements into full sentences. I note that the clause concerned has never been used to push imperial units in any circumstance in which they were controversial, or to in any way subvert the spirit of ].
			::Following warnings and warnings about not casting aspersions and making baseless claims of collusion, IntrepidContributor ignored them and to ] anyways. Their chances have run out. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What comment exactly you would like me to strike? That it "appears" there is off-wiki coordination, or that are POV editors, or it goes back many years? I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you. ] (]) 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Based on this answer, yeah, I think the best course of action is to encourage IC to look for other parts of the encyclopedia where they can work collaboratively and to be firmly invited to cease editing anything related to COVID-19. ] (]) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This comment, {{tq|I '''would''' be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, '''but I think they know already''', as do you}}, makes it sound like you are either bullshitting everyone about having evidence, or you are more worried about running everyone around the corner like dogs at a fire hydrant rather than actually helping out and exposing some serious fuckery that's going on in the topic. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 18:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] As an uninvolved admin looking over this, I suggest that you either confirm your submission of evidence to ARBCOM or cease your allegations of off-wiki collusion. You've not provided any evidence/diffs for on-wiki collusion and have repeatedly made accusations. This is unacceptable. ] ] ] 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::How are my supposed to confirm submission of evidence and to who? ] (]) 18:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Damn it, dude, you ARE running us around the bend like dogs at a fire hydrant! As has been instructed for you to do '''numerous times''': Go to the page --> ] <-- and look for the instructions to submit reports, and put your "evidence" there. Confirm that you did so here, <s>and we will ]: whether or not you actually did matters to nobody, because the only thing that will matter is that</s> {{!tq|and}} ''if you did'', a case that is '''none of our concern''' will open, and then if that case finds your "evidence" true, then those of us involved in the conspiracy will be put to arbitration either behind the scenes or at ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 18:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Or as the uninvolved Admin notes, an arb will confirm that they have received ''something'' from you, thus this tangent will close. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 18:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Say you've emailed them and I'm sure {{U|ScottishFinnishRadish}} or {{U|HJ Mitchell}} or another arb would be able to confirm receipt of a substantive and meaningful email containing your evidence. If they can confirm it, I would close this discussion. If not, I would look at ] ] ] 18:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Sure, I will email them in the morning (EET). I didn't plan on this extra work load today. But I have enough diffs to make the report by then. ] (]) 18:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You are putting this off as if you have nothing to report. First IntrepidContributor says "I have diffs", then '''present them'''. No, it's "I have off-wiki collusion", then '''go to ARBCOM'''. Cycling back-and-fuckin'-forth between this dog-fire hydrant nonsense, and ''finally'', now we're back at "{{tq|I have enough diffs}}". And you ask, "{{tq|to who}} ?", and after reiterating everything we have said numerously through this thread, you say {{tq|I will email them in the morning}}. You had enough time today to open this thread, then throw a ] of accusations everywhere, and you had enough time to . Yet, you don't have enough time to list diffs and give explanations to the arb committee? I smell a load of horse shit.
			:::::::<br>
			:::::::'''I invite the next uninvolved admin to''' {{!tq|issue a block}} '''to {{noping|IntrepidContributor}} for general ]'''.
			:::::::<br>
			:::::::Yours in ], ], and ], <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 19:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] - by my watch it is now in the afternoon EET (17:55), can you confirm here if you have actually submitted the email earlier today as promised here? ]&thinsp;] 15:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@] @] -- any chance you can confirm if @] has contacted ARBCOM in the last 24 hours? ]&thinsp;] 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Nothing in my inbox. ] &#124; ] 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I think at this point IC has failed to make good on their "I'll do it in the morning" commitment. And they still decline to withdraw their personal attacks and baseless accusations. ] (]) 12:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq| I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you.}} This is a direct accusation against an editor here and a nonsensical statement about the arbs. ] (]) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|as do you}} No I <s>struck</s> don't and I've had enough of being tarred with baseless <s>struck</s>. Whether that's here or at lableak talk page, somewhere I rarely comment on a topic I rarely edit. You appear to only be able to see editors you disagree with through a battleground mentality, and as part of some conspiratorial cabal.
			:::Unless an Arb can confirm that evidence has been provided, and shows something I've obviously missed, I propose IntrepidContributor be '''blocked''' for ] behaviour. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Well, they said they think the arbs already know. So I guess they're in on the conspiracy. ] (]) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@], please Read that again in '''''full''''' context. {{tq|What comment exactly you would like me to strike? That it "appears" there is off-wiki coordination, or that are POV editors, or it goes back many years? I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you.}} This was only a smartass, tongue-in-cheek remark about how "everybody here knows about fight club, but doesn't talk about it". Like, a smartass remark that "POV-pushing and cabals are an open secret knownst to the ]" or something. No arb has been notified, the editor is being a smartass. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 20:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Oh, I read this two ways, I thought you misread their text 😅 you're probably just being funny. lol sorry. The editor still needs a block tho. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes. But at this point, not sure I can tell when they are being serious or trolling. ] (]) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@], @] - I would hope the next uninvolved admin would see that I gave conditions for IntrepidContributor. If those are not met, they will be blocked. There's no rush here and carrying on this discussion calling for blood isn't exactly productive.
			:::::::If another admin find clear and convincing evidence warranting a block of Intrepid Contributor, then they should block them. Otherwise, I'd ask that the "offer" remain. ] ] 20:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I would block them now, @], and I would wait until a member of ARBCOM confirms—not ''what'' IntrepidContributor submitted—but that what they've submitted is '''legitimate evidence of what they claim is happening'''. At that confirmation, and with the ARBCOM member's blessing to the blocking admin, then the editor would be unblocked. The editor is fucking with us even as we outline the processes to make ARBCOM reports, and their other contributions listed in this report such as improper, half-assed deletions they won't bother to complete properly are screaming NOTHERE. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 20:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I agree with BT... <small>''(except the potentially uncivil, but probably warranted uncivil language)...''</small> Beyond this discussion, IC is otherwise being disruptive to the project including blanking pages with a lousy excuse.. Since they had the time to start this discussion that was apparently so urgent and a big deal, yet not the time to complete the necessary paperwork, coupled with all of the other factors, it seems like blocking to prevent further disruption is prudent. ]&thinsp;] 20:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::thanks for concurring. As the community has above developed a consensus that an editor using profanity to describe actions and behavior is not prohibited, I'm completely safe in calling IC's behavior shitty (]), so long as I make no direct remarks about IC ''personally''. I don't believe I've done that. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::As Jay said, besides the report, they have been being disruptive in other parts on Misplaced Pages, and considering the fact that they have been disruptive during the very processes of ANI itself, besides the unfounded claims of cabals they spew, there has been enough bullshit going on for a NOTHERE block. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Evergreen, forgive us our impatience. Some of us spend all too much time in CTOPs. It's wearing. ] (]) 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::If they show arbs proof of their accusations then fine, otherwise the they need to stop. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::My suspicion is that what IC actually has is like 2 diffs of some veteran editor saying to some other veteran editor "hey you should email me!" or something similar. Which is entirely normal, part of the way wikipedia works, and not "off-wiki coordination". Or some similar conspiratorial nonsense. {{pb}}When you're a '''hammer''' (''conspiracy-believing POV-pusher'') everything looks like a '''nail''' (''proof that all the mean people who disagree with you are actually part of a secret government agency that's coordinating against you and laughing about you behind your back''). {{pb}}Nothing that happens on the lab leak page requires or even ''suggests'' there is off-wiki coordination. Where contentious articles exist on wiki, there is almost always a small group of veteran editors who tangentially edit around that topic and watch their watchlists like hawks to make sure POV CPUSHing SPAs don't ruin the beauty that is a truly NPOV contentious article. They don't need to coordinate, because they generally share in common ''a belief in the five pillars'' and edit accordingly.{{pb}}I am really ''very'' excited to see what IC comes up with. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I honestly think what it comes down to is selection bias. The sorts of people who frequent the Fringe Theory noticeboard and who don't get mad and leave quickly tend to be skeptical, critical and materialist. And critical materialist skeptics tend to look negatively on conspiracy theories, pseudo science and quackery. For a conspiracy minded person there's all these like-minded nay-sayers saying variations of "that's a conspiracy theory" and so they... do what conspiracy minded people do and assume it's a conspiracy. Really it's just a messageboard whose topic filters for a certain subjectivity. ] (]) 01:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Boomerang''' I only speak for the quad-corner-tri-city and metro areas cabal, not the greater WP:MEDRS cabal, but I agree a boomerang is in order. ] (]) 08:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Boomerang means topic ban''', I presume. But y'all would be better served to make this kind of thing clear in your arguments. My worry when it comes to this matter is primarily with IntrepidContributor's claim of ] functioning rather as something like ] (and apologies for the possible Godwin's Law implications). In any case, and even if that's not what's going on, I have a hard time seeing the net positive in this topic coming from {{userlinks|IntrepidContributor}} and generally think the problems on this topic stem from a lack of strong ] enforcement which hopefully we are now coming to terms with. ] (]) 13:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:That would be my interpretation. A topic ban is definitely in order. Maybe for all conspiracy theories as well as anything COVID related. ] (]) 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::TBan would be appropriate no matter what. But IMO these ongoing accusations should result in an '''indef block''' for NOTHERE. ] (]) 16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Boomerang''' since they clearly did not heed advice to drop the stick and want to persist in their claims, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues. It has now been 20 hours since they posted so far, and I would be very curious to know if they actually did submit the email evidence that they claimed they would {{tq| email them in the morning (EET).}} - It is now 5:54pm (1754) in EET, so if they haven't yet, then it should result in '''indef block for legal threats''' and excessive disruption. If they did fulfill their promise, then a TBAN is still most certainly in order. ]&thinsp;] 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Did I miss something, what legal threats? ] (]) 13:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::For as much as this goofy goober IC ticks me off, I will give them one, '''one''' note: threatening to send people to the arbcom is not a legal threat. It's a Misplaced Pages "court", not an IRL court. ] doesn't apply here, but a whole heck of a lot of else does. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 13:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Ah okay thanks! ] (]) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Uh, the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee is not a court of law? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Block and TBAN already''', this is beyond ] at this point, so have no idea why people are !voting that the editor shouldn't be immune from scrutiny; based on BOOMERANG they never were in the first place, and this discussion went full circle boomerang instantly. Anyway, this has ] reading this section, I can only assume the other sections also wasted a lot of time. The editor is clearly being disruptive, casting aspersions, and is wasting everyone's time. Please don't allow this editor to drag this on any further than it already has been dragged out, such as requesting delays from ARBCOM to provide evidence or otherwise. ] (]) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*<Final Jeopardy music plays> I can't help but notice that IntrepidContributor has gone quiet since promising to expose the cabal to Arbcom... - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:You too, huh? Shall we ping someone uninvolved for a block due to legal threats and general disruption, or are you ready to do the deed? ]&thinsp;] 23:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@], I endorse you making the block on IntrepidContributor for NOTHERE and DISRUPTIVE. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 23:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Dinglelingy===
	::The second point I have already made clear. Yes, it is prescriptive. When things are as controversial as this, prescriptive is good because it reduces scope for people making argument like one of Michael's past favourites, "can is not must", as an excuse for pushing something that goes against the spirit of the guideline. You might understand where Michael is coming from here given that his own record of gaming the system is so bad that his proposals at ] are now routinely dismissed as being in bad faith. When it comes down to it, it is not a violation of ] to follow ] prescriptively.
			{{atop|1=No edits to mainspace since 2016. Blocked as ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			(Should we continue to keep all similar issues documented in the same monster section?)
			{{userlinks|Dinglelingy}}
	::The discussion on ] is not about "whether to follow MOSNUM or FALKLANDSUNITS". That is a misrepresentation. What would in fact happen is that FALKLANDSUNITS would be replaced with a version that references ] more directly. It would, notably, be just as prescriptive as ] in its current incarnation. I have opposed it because it lacks enforcement and because I can see the entire discussion flaring up again in a few months time when Martin decides he wants to push his POV again. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			This ] seems to dip in and out of this controversy whenever things get "interesting", and here comes now again dipping in with some fairly spicy arguments on the Lab Leak theory talkpage: ,
	:::The first point not true? Well, look at ]. Every metric measurement appears to be firmly in second place. An obvious effect of the "significant inconsistency" rule is in operation here, for British geographical articles are usually all metric or all metric except for the use of miles for distances.
			None of this user's contributions in this area are net positives for Misplaced Pages, and I submit that it would have been better had the proposed ] block been enacted when first proposed: . I guess a topic ban from COVID-19 could work too?
	:::His second point sounds like a dastardly plot, except that almost all the information I and others found happened to be metric. Kahastok is constantly battling with editors to keep the metrics in second place,
			] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The third point about MOSNUM is that the wording is ambiguous. The words "are still used" can be read as a description or a recommendation. This doesn't matter so much for miles but when football codes and the BBC use kilos and metres and the guidelines are about still using stones and pounds, feet and inches, there's an issue if you want consistency in player profiles. And, yes, Kahastok and his mates are well represented in MOSNUM so he's got the numbers there to keep the present wording. These editors seem to fear that leaving it to the good sense of editors to decide in cases of divided usage will lead to chaos, or worse, metrication!
			* 115 edits ever, and only 4 minor ones to article space. Last seen arguing on the talkpages of COVID conspiracy articles in 2021 for which they were warned multiple times, and back after four years doing the same thing ? That's the definition of ]. Indeffed. ] 08:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The fourth point is a power grab. If MOSNUM is as prescriptive as FALKLANDSUNITS then why isn't Kahastok satisfied? Because Kahastok wants ENFORCEMENT. He wants to enforce his interpretation of Wiki policy on others, and topic ban anyone who is too uppity or determined. Now this might suit the British Weights and Measures Society, but it's not suitable for Misplaced Pages. It need to be resisted. ] (]) 17:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] ==
	::::In that case you clearly haven't looked at ] very hard. I note that there is a current process of rewriting the article (which is being inevitably delayed by the decision of some to restart this debate), and that the current wording does not represent a standing consensus at this time. As I pointed out earlier in the discussion, if the article does not live up to ], nobody is stopping anyone from bringing it into line - or they weren't until the page was protected.
			*{{userlinks|Bgsu98}}
			Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br />
	::::The second point you make is part of your push for source-based units, a system that has been rejected on dozens of occasions (all at your proposal) at ], to the extent that such proposals are not considered to be in good faith at ]. I am not "constantly battling" - I'd rather not have this discussion at all. This is why I am doing what I'm doing here - to ensure that the current discussion is (so far as is possible) the end to this discussion. The fact is that the continual attempts to restart this debate are horrifically disruptive.
			I noticed an editor named {{u|Bgsu98}} who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by ] before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)<br />I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at ]. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.
			I should note that {{u|Bgsu98}} doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated ] (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (]). One can really wonder why he does this.
	::::On the third, the fact is most divided contexts are ''already'' metric-first according to ]. That's things like land area and hill height. You claim BBC usage, but the fact is that the BBC has no published in-house style on units (if they did we would probably use it) so their usage is hard to pin down. It's only the contexts that are overwhelmingly imperial-first in UK usage that are mentioned in the MOS, which is based on an external style guide.
			P.S. More information is here: ]. What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of ]. It seems that no one acted on this change until {{u|Bgsu98}} came.
	::::And the fourth simply isn't true. But the fact is that if the rules were not being so continuously gamed we would not still be having this problem. I note that the proposal is to apply ] for UK-related articles prescriptively - and that would be documented at ]. The reason I want prescriptive units is because we need an end to this discussion. The reason I want the consensus to be enforceable is because we need an end to this discussion.
			P.P.S. As I stated on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page I linked above, I think it was very unfair to change the rules. Especially since web sources tend to die out after some time.
	::::If we do not have prescriptive units, then in all likelihood we'll be back in the position we were in before ] was agreed, with Michael and Martin restarting the topic every three weeks claiming that they want to see if consensus has changed ''this'' time, and ]ily adding metric units against the agreed consensus purely on the basis that "can is not must". Ridiculous but true. Far from ending the debate, it would make it a far more continual feature on these talk pages.
			P.P.P.S. I would also like to note that I am polite, while {{u|Bgsu98}} has already accused me of "bad-faith accusations and outright lies" (). --] (]) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::And finally, I note that this is not the place to deal with the content dispute, so it's probably better to leave that to the three or four places it's already taking place. (Oh, and this is the only one of those discussions that I started as well.) '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			:as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @] or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @] who is nominating based on community consensus. ] ] 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Kahastok, if the Falkland Islands article is more imperial than MOSNUM or even FALKLANDSUNITS allows, then that isn't the fault of anyone you have clashed with in the matter of units.
			::I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"''However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules.''"<br />— They don't meet ], but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet ]. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require ], so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.<br />(I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --] (]) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::The test of usage is ''usage''. Look at the player profiles on the BBC and they're metric only. Like . It's a neat piece of wikilawyering to demand a style guide, but the usage is as I described it. That's why the British Weights and Measures Association is critical of the BBC. But it's not only the BBC. It's also the . I could give other examples, but suffice it to say that usage is mixed. And mixed usage is a good reason for ''not'' being dogmatic. The style guides themselves are . Prescriptively following the letter of one of them, no matter how august, while ignoring its admonition to "...keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use," is silly.
			:::Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, ] has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like ] without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re|Star Mississippi|Liz}} A ], a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "]" (])? Cause I was searching for sources for ] and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.<br />Here: .<br />And again, it was {{u|Bgsu98}} who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting ]: "''There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale''." --] (]) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::After looking at ], I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --] (]) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: I have also found an interview with ]: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes @] you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @] provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. ] ] 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			: This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. ] ] 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates ], otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no ] research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".<br />Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping {{u|BeanieFan11}} and {{u|Doczilla}}. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --] (]) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] claims to be polite, yet wrote : ''"random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom"''. Pinging ] who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.
			:He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From ]: ''"By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated ] 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"''
			:I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. ] seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. ] ] 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*C'mon, ], civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:*:I apologize, ]; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. ] ] 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*Here's my take, ]. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*:As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @] to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @] I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @] is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @] and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @] ] (]) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*::Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while {{u|Bgsu98}} directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)<br />Also, a note to admins: Can it be that {{u|Bgsu98}} finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".<br />And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --] (]) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*:::@] I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @] pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @], making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @]'s comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. ] (]) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*:::: I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*:::: Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*:::: According to , "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --] (]) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*:::::@]
			:::*:::::Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people."
			:::*:::::No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion.
			:::*:::::If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep.
			:::*:::::I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon.
			:::*:::::All the best to everyone involved. ] (]) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*:::] wrote the following in his original complaint: ''”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.”'' I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met ], the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. ] ] 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::*::::OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...<p>(2) Your curious assertion that he was the first person to AfD no-longer-qualifying skating articles is inaccurate; I did so myself, right after the NSPORTS changes, and I recall several editors also doing so.</p><p>(3) The Bialas AfDs did not close as Keep, as you wrongly assert. They closed as "no consensus", with almost no participation and multiple relistings; that's ''exactly'' the kind of situation where renomination to seek an actual consensus is appropriate.</p><p>(4) Rules change on Misplaced Pages, by the bucketload. I have a hard time seeing what is "very unfair" about this, unless "very unfair" is a secret code for "I don't like it, so it's unfair." And ... seriously? You've been on Misplaced Pages for fifteen years, have over sixty thousand edits, have participated in nearly a hundred AfDs? I'd expect this level of confusion from a first-week newbie, not from an editor of your experience. ] 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
			::He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::“Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. ] ] 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Let me help you out here, Ravenswing. I suspect he's saying it's "very unfair" because it seems to him like it's not fair! <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria ({{tq|What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.}}), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. —
			:] (]) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a ]. ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ] (]) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::You say that really the problem is people gaming the rules. But it's not gaming the rules to interpret them slightly differently. Or if it is gaming the rules to interpret them too loosely, then it's certainly gaming to interpret them too prescriptively and then trying to get someone topic banned. The rules of Misplaced Pages should not be used to fight the good fight on behalf of the British Weights and Measures Association.
			* I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often ''really'' poor; many are simply {{tq|Non-notable figure skater}}, which doesn't say much of anything. ] (]) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. ] ] 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::And @], you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at ]. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --] (]) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide ] for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created '''seventeen years ago''' -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. ] 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::: The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – ''and'' many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While ''you'' may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. ] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("]" and "]".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.<br />But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.<br />Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)<br />By the way, I have tried searching on what was once ], but the news search doesn't work anymore. (.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. ] (]) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Arbitrary break===
			{{Od}} ...{{Tpq|editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes}}. Just curious if you or anyone else honestly believes that the opinions of these editors takes priority over the view held in the real world that six million articles falls substantially short of "the sum of all human knowledge". contained the following statement: "According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles". I know some of you are in serious denial and will try to suppress this as a result, but I'm gonna keep saying it anyway. We don't have the sum of all human knowledge, nor are we trying to achieve it. At best, we're the sum of what Google and legacy media has spoon-fed you today within the past X number of years.]/]/] (posted 00:37, January 9, 2025 UTC)
			:RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re|Liz}} The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".<br />A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".<br />Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per ]", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the ] revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::], I guess you can choose to call them "gatekeepers" but I consider them dedicated volunteers. The number of editors who participate in AFDs has declined for at least the past two years, so if you can think of a way to get more editors involved, or if you want to help out by spending, let's say, 10 hours a week evaluating articles and sources in AFD deletion discussions, your help would be welcomed. But don't criticize the editors who actually show up and help. Without them, we would only have the opinions of editors who nominate articles for deletion and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of those nominated articles were simpy deleted without any feedback at all from other editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --] (]) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. ] (]) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You act like some people on AfD who dismiss sources "for the sake of dismissing". Why did even think it was a website for some "Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member"? It is just a sports news website (a sports portal) like any other. --] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::]. Really, that's quite similar to what happens on AfD. I can go deep into Google Search, spend lots of time, but some people will just say "not third-party" or smth like this. Where do they see that and how do they come to their conclusions? It's a mystery to me. --] (]) 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:(nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) ] 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: {{re|Ravenswing}}, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.<br />And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.<br />I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --] (]) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Please be careful with the ], Moscow Connection. --] 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Okay. --] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. ] (]) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. ] 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue.
			:::::::Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions: {{tq|Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started.}} ] (]) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::And ] is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines ''after'' SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. ] (]) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::] example of ignoring SIGCOV ''already present'' in the article. ] (]) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{Ping|GiantSnowman}} {{Ping|Black Kite}} ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. ] (]) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::] is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. ] (]) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. ]] 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::] and ] is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised ] and , although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message {{tq|Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior.}} ] (]) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::And here are ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes ], close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? ]] 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Going through their contributions, I see about a week ago there was a period of 30 minutes where they did seven AfDs -- not what I would call a paragon of thoroughness. But fifty in a half-hour is absolutely absurd regardless of when it happened -- I take more time than that to line up a shot when I throw a tissue into the trash can at the other end of the room. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. ]] 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::: If you go to 10 May 2024 , you get exactly '''50''' nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per . ] (]) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. ]] 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that ] provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?<p>So why am I doing this? Perhaps it's strange to you that anyone could act out of a dispassionate wish to uphold Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, instead of out of partisan motives, but you'll find that most ANI regulars do just that. ] 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
			*I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, ''especially'' these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. ''However'', I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like ], tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. ] </span>]] 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @] and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @] without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @] basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @]. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @] probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @] is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @] we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @] ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:*I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking {{u|Star Mississippi}} to undelete the "]" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at ]. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of {{u|Kvng}}, noticed: {{tq|No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG}}, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.<br />You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:*I've decided to save "]" (]) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --] (]) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:*:1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. ] (]) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:*:*"{{tq|You don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what}}"<br />— What I do is called ]. What you just did by claiming you can read Martian, I honestly don't know.<br />I've started this discussion because I saw the user's 45 nominations at ] and that scared me a lot. --] (]) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:*:*:It's called ironic humour and, with everything going on in the world right now, if a Misplaced Pages AFD scared you a lot then you are obviously in the very fortunate position to have so few worries. Anyway I'm moving on to spend my time more productively. I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavours. ] (]) 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**I appreciate your input and insight. As I told ] earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.<br>I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! ] ] 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Sorry, Bgsu, I completely missed that you had committed to slowing down. I think that's a great idea that resolves the issue here. Just remember, when you get frustrated by other editors, do your best to stay polite – if you can't, simply step away from the keyboard for a moment. I don't want to see you get in trouble for one too many snarky comments. ] </span>]] 09:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --] (]) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::Yeah, agreed - really not helping move away from the comments above the MC is here because they don't like AFD. ]] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:While I do not know whether @] should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with {{tq|I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for.}} @]. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. ] ] 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating ''far'' fewer articles with {{tq|Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!}} I suppose the whole discussion is moot. ] </span>]] 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)<br />As I have commented below, when problems were found with {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}'s articles, he was told to go through all his articles and check them. (Actually, there was a user who volunteered to help, but that user was revealed to be Sander.v.Ginkel himself, cause no one in their right mind would have volunteered to check 40000 articles. I, personally, don't want to be a slave and don't want to check Bgsu98's past nominations, especially knowing how little effort he put into creating them and that I would have to spend years looking for sources.) --] (]) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::It's a volunteer project. Someone may choose to, as you did initially, or no one will. But unless they're salted, there's nothing prohibiting restoration to drafts if ] can be found. We can fix going forward but can't always fix what happened before even when there's a collaborative effort. ] ] 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, and . ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. ] (]) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::"As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that ] is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) ] ] 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			** If even that's true, no none came. (No one of the whole two.) And Bgsu98 did the same by pinging his like-minded AfD colleague. (He pinged him immediately.) --] (]) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* As a fellow ] participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that {{ping|Bgsu98}} convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion ''is'' warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--] ] 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Mass AfDs routinely get shot down reflexively, on the (somewhat threadbare) grounds that they should all be reviewed on their individual merits, and not lumped in a group. Something of a Catch-22 there. In any event, the answer for an inadequately sourced article is not to jump through extraordinary hoops to find what isn't there. The answer is that the article cannot be sustained -- but can be recreated without prejudice should such sourcing surface down the road -- even when it's an article on a figure skater. ] 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Right, good point. But it still makes sense for cases where the rationale is mostly the same. Maybe not 100 articles in one but 5-10. This should help keep it at a more manageable level. ] ] 05:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I agree with you, but in recent years, a significant number of editors haven't: sufficient to sabotage most attempts to do so. ] 13:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend ''everyone'' take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, ] states the following: {{tq|Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.}} So, I'd ask {{ping|Moscow Connection}} to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.{{pb}}But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: ''a normal Google search'', or a ''Google Books search'', or a ''Google News search'', or a ''Google News archive search''? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for '''expanding ] to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects'''. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly ''recommend'' more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but ''required''? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are '''significantly''' based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.{{pb}}Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely ]). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does '''not''' require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion ''at the appropriate place'' if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			** I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for ]'s name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet ], so unless you can show that there are ''multiple'' instances of ''significant'' coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:: Here's a link to the book: . (I've tried and tried, but I don't know how to add "bks" to the Google Books search URL.) --] (]) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:: A search for "李宣潼" on Google News returned this article: and a couple more. The one I linked looks very solid, it is a full-fledged biography. (The AfD discussion is here: ]. As usual, the rationale is: {{tq|Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements.}}) --] (]) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:: And one more article → about Li Xuantong and her partner ] (also nominated for deletion by Bgsu98). It's like a print magazine article + interview, looks "massive". --] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:: Another example: ].<br />A simple Google News search for "김유재 2009" returns a lot. I didn't look too far, but I found two lengthy articles about her and her twin sister on the first page (, ) and voted "keep".<br />(I would also note that there are already some AfD regulars present in that discussion. But no one has googled her name.) --] (]) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:: OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: ]. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.) --] (]) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::You ''do'' realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. ] (]) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::{{re|HyperAccelerated}} Did it sound strange or silly? Sure, I understand the difference. But people do say "article's notability" when it's actually "the notability of an article's subject". I thought that an article and its subject are interchangeable in colloquial wikispeech. --] (]) 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::Personally, I would feel I had done a slipshod job if I made a nomination for an article with some passing-mention search results, and I did not address these in the nomination statement, or at the very least indicate that I had made the search. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (], ], ]) - dates back to ]. In fact, last year ] (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with ]. ]@] 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. {{ping|Bgsu98}} It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are ''multiple'' examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that ] already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care ''why'' they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.{{pb}}If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.{{pb}}All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I've provided some 20 examples as well. ] (]) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --] (]) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. ] (]) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a ] and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --] (]) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Articles that should not have been deleted have been kept by consensus at AfD. This is how AfD works. They are in the exact same state that they were before they were nominated, perhaps even better by ]. No “damage” has occurred. Additionally, if you think an article has been deleted when it shouldn’t, it is ''your'' responsibility to bring your concerns to DRV. This does not change just because you made a thread at ANI. You do not get to pick and choose which policies apply to whom. ] (]) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Bgsu has already agreed to limit their nominations to a couple a day. This is a far stricter constraint than what could have probably been reached by consensus. What more do you want? For reasons I don’t understand, your response to this is “the limit should be more like 0” without any grounding in policy. As I see it, Bgsu is plainly negotiating in good faith, while your behavior is bordering on bullying. ] (]) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] has hit the nail on the head. This discussion should have been tossed immediately or at least closed down well before now. The early responses were that this was a content dispute not appropriate for ANI then the OP kept going with rapid fire posts and a few editors who appear to have a pre-existing axe to grind with @] revved it up into what it has become. As a side note it will be very interesting to see how the outstanding AFDs are adjudicated and by whom. ] (]) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{OD}}
			*'''Oppose any sanctions''' to Bgsu98. I did a spot-check of some of the more contentious AfDs and, honestly, the keep !votes did not provide a compelling argument to keep in any of those cases. As I mentioned to {{U|Moscow Connection}} above, for example, they provided six links to one of the subjects - and every single link was in the sports.ru domain which is not independent and does not establish notability for a Russian athlete. It's very unfortunate that so many editors here have expressed either distain for or fear of the AfD process, which is integral to the quality of this project and which I would heartily encourage more editors to participate in. And I can assure those people with misconceptions that many AfDs conclude with an article being kept or with no consensus - which is a de-facto keep. The sum of all human knowledge is a lofty goal. But one philosophical point I would ask extreme inclusionists to consider is that there is a difference between knowledge and data. AfD is a process whereby we distinguish between knowledge and data according to criteria - imperfect criteria surely but criteria - which we agreed to as participants in this project. We shouldn't be punishing a person for efficiently doing a hard job just because it's one that has a side-effect of upsetting people. ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:In case it was not already clear I too '''Oppose''' sanctions against @]. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Whereas I '''support''' some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. ]] 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to ], my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. ] ] 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your ]. ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Once an AFD is settled, I remove it. What's the problem? The log shows active AFD's only. ] ] 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* How about ] just agrees to not nominate more than, I don't know, two articles per day (based on their comment {{tq|I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!}}) and we end the discussion? ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@] I second this proposal. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Two a day is fine by me. ]] 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			** I think there should be a requirement for him to show some sources he has found. (In every nomination. If there aren't any, then a link to a Google search query can suffice.)<br />Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)<br />Does he ever search the net? That's the question. Has it happened even once that he wanted to delete an article and then found a source for it, added the source and went away? --] (]) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Wow. Mister "I would also like to note that I am polite" is again denigrating others' work, as if adding scores and formatting tables to meet Misplaced Pages's MOS is unimportant. "He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content." Yep, very polite. ] ] 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::At this point, I'm seriously starting to think Moscow Connection needs topic banned from AfD in general, if not the entire subject matter of these articles. MC has demonstrated an inability to edit collaboratively without resorting to personal attacks and demands. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::I am regrettably willing to support either of those sanctions against MC at this point. They’ve been warned multiple times about the possibility of a ], and those warnings were not heeded. While I really want to assume good faith here, their behavior resembles ], following Bgsu from nomination to nomination and casting a copious amount of aspersions on this ANI thread. Even if some of the Keep votes provide legitimate sources, the act of following a user across many discussions and refbombing them (in at least one case, as described in the discussion below) is not acceptable. ] (]) 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: And, as I've said, one should also search in the skater's native language. And for Russian figure skaters, Google doesn't work, you need Yandex. (And Yandex is not good as a search engine, some effort is needed to find anything. The major sports websites have profiles for everyone, you need to find the needed profile and go from there. It sounds too complicated, but that's how it is.) --] (]) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			** Also, he doesn't appear to know how to use the ]. The ] article had a good reference, I found it in the archive. His nomination (]) doesn't mention the reference, like if it doesn't exist. Maybe he didn't even look at the references section. --] (]) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			** What I mean is that he should be required to show some sources he has found and to explain why these sources do not suffice. (After all, if he nominates an article, then obviously he doesn't find the coverage sufficient.)<br />There's always something. (Almost always.) But since he nominates mostly skaters who have finished their careers, the number of potential sources (news articles) found on the internet shouldn't be big. There are usually just a few. --] (]) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:MC, you are rapidly digging a hole you will not be able to get out of. This incessant demands and aggressive comments are wearing thin, and if you do not stop you are likely to face ] sanctions yourself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::{{reply|HandThatFeeds}} Okay, okay, sorry! By the way, I didn't even have this page on my watchlist and was just waiting for the outcome. (I came here yesterday, and there were no new replies. So I thought that was all, everyone was just waiting for an admin closure. I, personally, had said everything I wanted, I didn't even have anything to add.)<br />P.S. I just came here now because Bgsu98 have edited some of my Russian figure skater articles just now. (I'm not attacking him, he hasn't ever nominated even one article of mine for AfD. Maybe because I'm trying to add a source or two to them.) --] (]) 04:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I think this would be reasonable. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I can see how Bgsu's nomination volume can be a problem, and support his voluntary limitations and promise to provide more thorough deletion rationales. At the same time, given the kinds of sources MC has produced as "evidence" of GNG at, e.g., ], I think his perception of our notability requirements is wildly out of line with the community's. As @] pointed out in that AfD, MC basically ''repeatedly'' refdumped a bunch of interviews and couple-sentence mentions despite being informed of their ineligibility in contributing toward GNG, so if those are the kinds of sources they are bringing up now to demonstrate "nonexistent BEFORE searches" I am quite skeptical that the problem is as actionable as they claim. That, coupled with their broad disapproval (unawareness?) of our current NSPORT guidelines, makes me concerned about the notability of their own creations—are they also basing those articles on interviews and routine transactional blurbs? ] (]) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I've started to wonder the same thing: that if MC is either utterly unaware of relevant notability standards or (as I suspect is the case) utterly defiant of them, are they another Lugnuts or Dolovis, and their article creations full of NN subjects? Ultimately, I don't give a damn whether MC (or anyone else) likes or approves of Misplaced Pages's standards, but they have to comply with them all the same.<p>In any event, I '''oppose any sanction or limitation on Bgsu'''. I am not sure when people got the idea that filing bulk AfDs was against policy, but they are very greatly mistaken if they do think that. ANI is not the proper venue for a community discussion on changing that policy, and I recommend the Village Pump. ] 23:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
			*::I came across this article today: ]. was the state of the article MC left before another user (and regular contributor to FS articles) added some of the tables. There is also this one: ]. ] ] 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Hello. I've just noticed you edits to my articles and added some reliable sources.<br />Sorry that I left the articles like that, but I'm not too interested in figure skating lately, I just saw the 2025 Russian Championships results and wanted to create some stubs for some new "figure skating stars". (Back in the days, other users, ones who know how to format all the tables, would come and do everything. Just a blink of an eye, and there's a lengthy article — competitive highlights, music, everything. But now I can't see anyone. Maybe they are upset by the changes to NSKATE and stopped working on Wiki.) --] (]) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I have added simply terrific sources everywhere. (Everyone has a full-fledged biography on a big media site.) --] (]) 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I simply searched on Google.com. and came out on the first page. You posted here instead of simply googling.<br />P.S. I know that this article is not my proudest moment. But I don't really edit figure skating articles lately and I have never been active much in this topic. Not on the English Misplaced Pages, anyway. --] (]) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::There is no such thing as 'your' articles, see ]. ]] 10:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Also that source is very dubious. Look at their about page. Notice that they have a Guinness World Records Certificate image there? It's not got the official Guinness world records logo and there are errors in how the numbers are notated on it. Which suggests this newspaper has a fake Guinness world record cert on their about page. So, yeah, not very reliable. ] (]) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Hello! First of all, I must explain that I only came to that nomination because {{u|Berchanhimez}} asked me to find some examples of Bgsu98 not doing any WP:BEFORE research. So I went to ] and looked at the current nominations. I am very sorry if I "dumped" a lot of "bad" sources on that AfD page, but I simply wanted to show everything that I had found. And I believe that it is advisable that Bgsu98 does something like this in his future nominations. Like: "Look what I have found on Google. This, this. this. I believe it's not enough and the skater is not notable. Now let's discuss."<br />P.S. At first, I wanted to find some of his old nominations of some really big names, but I didn't know how to find them. So that's what I did, I came to the current ones. (I looked at some figure skating championships articles, but there were no red links. It seems that, after an article gets deleted, he or someone else deletes all the links to it.)<br />P.P.S. I should probably be advised to retire from this discussion. Cause I'm being attacked already. And it looks like some people are already advising me to go away. So I'm going away. I'm still hoping something good will come of this. --] (]) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I think this is good of you. You’ve provided your examples, and it’s now up to others to decide whether they are examples of violations of BEFORE or not. Thank you for refocusing your comments on specific examples rather than the back and forth that was going on.
			*::I tend to agree that BEFORE should not be a private thing. If someone does a BEFORE and finds nothing, stating such is good. But if they find borderline or a bunch of insignificant coverage, then providing at least examples of that in the nomination with a short explanation as to why they do not consider them valid goes to show they actually did a BEFORE.
			*::I don’t think a voluntary restriction on number of AfDs is enough to assuage the fact that the nomination statements are short and don’t address the sources that should be found during a BEFORE. But hopefully a limit of two per day will result in better nomination statements that address more borderline sources.
			*::At this point it doesn’t seem there’s any appetite for sanctions, and I think MC has been explained why many of the sources they have found don’t qualify for GNG. So maybe a closure with no action overall, and hopefully going forward less nominations at a time will result in more discussion in those nominations so that issues over why the sources found aren’t adequate can occur on each individual nomination. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 17:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Is this another one of those things where between the people who spend dozens of hours a week on enforcing policies and making up new policies and arguing about how to modify policies look down our noses at the people who "merely" write/edit articles when they are confused that the rules they laboriously followed for years have been randomly changed without even their knowledge, let alone their consensus? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:No, it's more like a dispute between someone sending a bunch of articles to AfD because they lacked proper sourcing, and a fan of those articles throwing everything they can at the wall to try and "save" those articles, while smearing the person who sent them to AfD. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Never mind what I said uptopic, JPxG: policies and guidelines change, from time to time. Always have, always will, and neither yours, mine nor anyone else's personal approval are a precondition of ratifying them. It is incumbent upon editors to stay abreast of such changes if they're engaged in ongoing article creation, but at any rate, they're not exempted from them. Leaving aside that the GNG and SIGCOV have been around for many years now, the changes in NSPORTS are a few years old themselves.<p>In any event, you surely can't be advocating that the most productive way to handle being in this situation is to kick, scream, and rail against the injustice of it all, as opposed to "Gosh, sorry, I didn't know. I'll go read those guidelines now, and conform hereafter." ] 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
			**{{reply to|JPxG}} That's a good observation! :-)<br />But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a ] search. His actions are bot-like, and his AfD nominations usually receive one or two bot-like "delete" votes. We may as well just delete all the articles that are now outside of ]. It will be more fair than <u>imitating</u> an AfD process.<br />P.S. I do appreciate the people who work on AfD and put their time in reviewing the nominations. I see that some of Bgsu98's nominations do end in a "keep" thanks to those hard-working people. But there are many more that would have been kept if a proper web search was done.<br />P.S. I really can't participate in this ANI thread anymore, cause I have tried to comment on some AfD nominations and what I've got are just accusations of disrupting/sabotaging the process. --] (]) 01:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Okay, that's enough. This is just more aspersions thrown at Bgsu98, even after all the attempts above to get Moscow to disengage. I think Moscow needs a topic ban from AfD, and a one-way IBAN with Bgsu9. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:: The only thing I see about Bgsu98 in that comment is {{tq|But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE search. His actions are bot-like}}. That's certainly a valid view of the nominations. ] (]) 18:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::'''Support TBAN and IBAN:''' My hand's kind of forced here. As I stated above, I really, ''really'' didn't want to do this. However, calling other people's behavior "bot-like" without evidence is a pretty serious aspersion, and MC has been warned many times to drop the stick at this point. This is the final straw for me. These read like veiled accusations, and while MC might come here and claim that I'm misunderstanding them, I just can't give the benefit of the doubt after witnessing this consistent pattern of misbehavior. ] (]) 04:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::*First, you invite me to AfD (that I do not normally visit), then, when I do drop by, you don't like my comments and want to make me banned from there. That's unpolite, to say the least. And what IBAN, fgs? I swear I didn't even know who this Bgsu98 user was until a few days ago.<br />{{tq|My hand's kind of forced here.}} — That's just strange. You are not an admin. Do you have some anger issues? I think it is you and {{u|HyperAccelerated}} who need a ban from ANI and an IBAN from interacting with <u>me</u> because I have never seen you in my life and you are attacking me all of a sudden.<br />P.S. I hope this will be my last comment here. --] (]) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::{{tqq|Do you have some anger issues?}} And now you're ], which is ''absolutely not a good look'' on top of everything else here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::::{{reply to|The Bushranger}} I am very, very sorry. I didn't know that could be seen as "aspersions" that weren't allowed. They have also casted "aspersions" saying that I was trying to harrass Bgsu98 and sabotage the AfD process. When in fact, I just posted to ANI and never talked to Bgsu98 elsewhere. So I just wanted to reply to them in a similar manner. That was stupid of me.<br />As for my "disruption" at AfD, I simply searched for sources and showed everything I have found. (That's how I usually search for sources, sorry. This time I didn't even try to go through all the 100 pages of Google results.)<br />{{u|JPxG}} said that this was "one of those things" between people who enforce policies and the people who write articles. But it looks like some people who are attacking me are ] who make minor edits. And when they saw one billion sources I had dumped at one AfD, they didn't understand.<br />P.S. I hope I didn't say anything wrong again. I sincerely promise that I will never return to this discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience I have caused. --] (]) 07:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::::I also don't think ignorance is an acceptable excuse for these kinds of comments at this point. As Ravenswing pointed out above (), you've been here for fifteen years. You should be more than familiar with the guidelines for civility by now. I also issued a warning that your behavior was becoming sanction-worthy , and Hand also issued a warning . AfD requires users to resolve disagreements over whether to keep or discuss articles in a civil manner. Given MC's aspersion that I have "anger issues" and the refbombing at ] of Bgsu's, I have serious doubts as to whether they can be an effective participant in AfDs. ] (]) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::* {{tq|I really, ''really'' didn't want to do this. However, calling other people's behavior "bot-like" without evidence is a pretty serious aspersion}} – {{u|HyperAccelerated}}: would you say that mass nominating ''fifty'' different articles for deletion in half as many minutes with the exact same one-sentence rationale is ''not'' bot-like? ] (]) 16:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::*:Not entirely. I think it can be done by hand in that span of time, albeit it's a bit tedious. The use of "bot-like" in this context is questionable at best and objectionable at worst. But, regardless of whether you agree with my interpretation of this remark, I'm more concerned about a broader pattern of misbehavior coming from MC. We should not mistake the forest for the trees. ] (]) 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::*{{reply to|Liz}} Can this be stopped, please? I've said everything I wanted to say and went away from this discussion, but {{u|HandThatFeeds}} and {{u|HyperAccelerated}} are still attacking me and are writing something strange in bold font. It looks like they have highjacked this discussion and are leading it to some very unusual outcome.<br />P.S. I've actually found out how I "first met" Bgsu98 and I've posted my findings here on ANI, but then I deleted that post: . (I'm sorry, but Bgsu98's name looked to me like something from a random character generator. And I don't remember every sequence of characters I see on the internet. :-)) --] (]) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::On ANI, when things aren't going your way, you don't get to say "please stop the discussion". Everyone's conduct is open to discussion here - ], and {{tqq|are writing something strange in bold font}}, when the only "bold font" used by (one of) them is the (very obvous) !vote to topic-ban you, is concerning. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Archive top
	:::::Kahastok, look around you. You are in a minority of one here. Ask yourself why everybody in this thread is out of step - except you. ] (]) 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			|status = withdrawn
			|result = Probably being a bit too zealous here on the whole civility thing, so closing this before I feed the fire any more. (] me, I've become the very editor I swore to fight) ] (]) 03:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			=== ] TBAN for ] ===
			Uninvolved editor here. I don't know much about ] technicalities that brought this issue here. What I do know is that ] conduct on here is clearly over the line, and suggests an inability to follow ] that suggests an inability to participate at AfD and a poor understanding of our deletion policy. Hence, I propose a topic ban from AfD. A word of personal advice for the user in question. If you have discovered new sources for an article previously deleted, first ask for an article to be restored to your user page, then improve the article, and then submit it through AfC. ] (]) 17:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose'''. This would be for a grand total of '''three''' "incorrect" AFD !votes. That's it. Three. (] / ] / ]). Topic-banning an editor because there were three AFDs where they provided sources that were insufficient, whereas we have an editor at this discussion who was nominating potentially notable articles (and many notable articles) ''en masse'' without any search whatsoever, which included 50 AFDs in half as many minutes, is utterly ludicrous. This discussion should have been closed a long time ago with no action, or, if anything, a restriction on Bgsu98. ] (]) 18:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. While they have at times been obtuse in this ANI thread, they do not seem to have done any actual harm outside of it. I am opposed to the existence of a "thunderdome" area where people get summoned to do combat, yelled at by a dozen people for several days, and then banned if they happen to get mad during this.
	::::::It is not Wikilawyering to point out trying to infer a policy for the BBC from the units they happen to use on a given page or group of pages, in the absence of any source telling us what units they use, is original research. Sometimes they use metric units, sometimes they use imperial. Even in that context - you would not expect Gary Lineker or John Motson to give a player's dimensions in metric units on air. Unless we have a style guide telling us, there's nothing concrete we can say.
			:<b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose.''' Even I think this is unnecessary at this point. ] ] 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose'''. The user is highly passionate about the subject. That’s great - and to be quite blunt, we should be encouraging that. The user identified a problematic behavior (rapid AfD nominations that did not appear, at first, to be BEFOREd properly). From what I’ve seen, those issues have been resolved - both by the user reported agreeing to slow down on their nominations and explain them better, as well as by the MC realizing that many of the coverages they’ve found are borderline ''at best'' for determining notability.
	::::::Quite why you have gone on to Premier League footballers is not clear - I am unaware of any Falklands-based footballers, or Falkland Islander footballers, playing anywhere in the Premier League. However, I suspect it has something to do with your mass-] violation of .
			:This thread got out of hand because people didn’t focus on the issue at hand. And I broadly agree with jpxg above - when rather than trying to refocus the thread people just pile on someone who made a good faith report, ''of course they’ll get a bit mad and make some mistakes that are borderline NPA/civility violations''. But ask yourself this - is recommending a BOOMERANG for a problem that’s resolved not inflaming the situation ''more''? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::*'''Oppose''' As @] said this discussion should have been closed a long time ago. @] has been very uncivil at times on this thread and others, particularly in their language and questioning of other editors' motives and abilities, but hopefully they will learn from what has been said during this discussion and will not repeat this behaviour. I was in favour of giving @] a chance and I do not want to be hypocritical by not doing so with MC too.
			::] (]) 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Archive bottom}}
			== KirillMarasin promoting medical treatments and "conversion therapy" ==
	::::::It appears to me that everyone has lost interest in this conversation here, and I suggest we do the same. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|status=CBANNED|1=KirillMarasin has been ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{user|KirillMarasin}}
			I think we have two related problems with KirillMarasin. First up, he promotes and seeks to legitimise the pseudo-medical practice of "]" (, , Yes, that really is a medical claim being sourced to Reddit!) and secondly he adds medical claims to other articles which are either unreferenced or which are improperly referenced to sites selling supplements (, , and ). Attempts by multiple editors to warn him have been unavailing and I read as both a personal attack and a highly offensive suggestion that I practice "conversion therapy" on myself. Beyond that, this is a clear and sustained case of ] and ]. --] (]) 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::Agreed. I understand how strongly you object to my edits two years ago, but whatever you think of them, almost all have remained unchallenged these two years. So let's let it rest and conclude on good terms. Best wishes, ] (]) 09:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			:I don't think I promoted anything though. I didn't say it was good or bad, I was trying to be neutral. ] (]) 15:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Even if my edits are not high-quality, the article on conversion therapy has a lot of gaslighting, saying time and time again there are no treatments, when the opposite is true. ] (]) 09:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Not according to science baaed RS which is all that matters from Misplaced Pages's PoV ] (]) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::What is RS? ] (]) 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Good question! You were supposed to know that in order to edit Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's short for "Reliable Sources". You can learn about it at ] @]. ] (]) 15:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you, I've already read it. ] (]) 15:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Not only are your edits not of high-quality, at least two of your sources are garbage, and you're edit warring at that article as well. You need to step away from that article.]] 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Why would you even consider 4Chan to be a legitimate source for anything, let alone a science/medicine-based topic? That, in of itself, is a major issue. ] (]) 11:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Just looking at the three ] edits mentioned by DanielRigal, makes a medical claim without citing any sources at all and cites reddit and 4chan for medical claims. Finally, cites a paper in the Journal of Neurosurgery for the claim that {{tq|some methods of conversion therapy were working}}. The paper in question in fact says that {{tq|while Heath claimed that the patient had a full recovery and engaged exclusively in heterosexual activities, other sources argued that the patient continued to have homosexual relationships}}. Any of these diffs on their own would be totally unacceptable. {{pb}}Additionally, a glance at ] shows that KirillMarasin not only added these claims once, but reinstated them after their removal was adequately explained. e.g. they add the "some methods of conversion therapy were working" claim, the addition is reverted with the edit summary explaining that the source does not support the addition, KirillMarasin reinserts the text with the edit summary {{tq|It doesn't need deleting, I'll try to edit it to better reflect the article.}} When somebody reverts an edit because it contradicts the cited source, you need to fix that error {{em|before}} reinstating it. ] (]) 10:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Would a ] on ] prevent further inappropriate editing? Note this is a ''question'', I'm not familiar with ] and it may very well not have any bearing or may be the wrong approach here. --] (]) 11:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I think there's a CIR issue as well. The slipping of sources from 4chan into a contentious topic seems either like overt trolling or a serious lack of understanding of sources.] (]) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I tested the treatments on myself before writing. ] (]) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Anecdotal evidence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Only scientific evidence qualifies as a reliable source that can be quoted. ] (]) 15:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::] is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'd still like to ], even though I'm beginning to have my doubts. I think this is a CIR issue first and foremost, with a mixture of POV-pushing and lack of understanding of ], ] and ]. Since they are here, and reading this page, and haven't edited since they started following this conversation, I think {{re|KirillMarasin}} should read those policies first, before they attempt to edit again. If they continue with their current editing pattern, though, a ] would be entirely appropriate. &mdash; ] (]) 12:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::The editor ] to ] in the past, before the most recent spate of unsourced or promotionally-sourced edits, so it does not seem to have had any positive effect. -- ] (]) 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Not all of the problem edits have been ]; the ones listed by the OP aa diffs 5 through 8 are on sexual health matters not under that GENSEX guideline. A more general medical topic ban, widely construed, may be more appropriate. -- ] (]) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:], ]. I can assume good faith, as this editor presumably grew up in a culture where widespread homophobia is normalized (referring, of course, to 4chan), but these edits are repulsive. I would expect that an editor of 15 years would be aware of policies like ], let alone ]. Editors who like to tweak numbers and facts without citations can wreak a lot more disruption than just inserting insane nonsense on controversial articles, which is easily spotted and reversed. –] (] • ]) 15:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} Frankly, it amazes me that this is still an open thread. As WCM has noted below, no admin has jumped in to deal with this because they're probably all just looking on in the same dazed amazement that I am experiencing and repeatedly facepalming themselves. Rather than let this drag on, I suggest that the parties here drum up an RFC but are then topic banned from all Falklands articles for the duration of the RFC so that some truly outside opinions can be sought and this absurd issue can be dealt with once and for all. Otherwise, it'll just be the same farce all over again a few months down the track. ] (]) 09:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::I tested the treatments on myself before writing. And why do you use strong language on my edits instead of trying to stay neutral? ] (]) 15:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::]. ] (]) 16:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Misplaced Pages does not publish ]. –] (] • ]) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Wow. It's understandable that a newbie might believe that such obvious ] might be acceptable, but for someone with KM's tenure here to present "{{tq|I tested the treatments on myself}}" as a justification for adding something to '''any''' article, let alone one subject to ], is extremely concerning. ] (]) 18:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{user|KirillMarasin}} has been here for more than a decade. It's hard to believe that suddenly, he doesn't know that 4Chan isn't a usable source - and in a topic like this, too. Signs are pointing to NOTHERE. ] (]) 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm sorry for posting low-quality content here. I will adhere to the rules in the future. ] (]) 15:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I find that impossible to believe, given your tenure here and apparent ]. At this point I can only assume you are trolling. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think an indefinite block for ] is an appropriate remedy. ] (]) 20:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Having looked through this, all I can say is ''wow''. Even leaving aside the ''obvious'' problems already listed above, and with {{tqq|Have you tried this on yourself before making a comment? If not, then I don't have time to argue with you.}}, there's the odd fact that the editor was away for a time and then came back here to do ''this'', inserting what are or are indistinguishable from promotional links, and generally taking a hard turn from most previous editing, making me wonder if the account is ]. Suggesting an indefinite block because either it's that or it's very elaborate trolling. - ] <sub>]</sub> 19:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:No ] the account is compromised, but that doesn't conclusively prove it isn't. --] (]) 20:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:While they've been relatively inactive for years, the only year since first becoming active that they have made no edits at all is 2022. They have been making psychiatry-related edits since at least 2018 (see e.g. addition of a treatment claim based on their admittedly original research) and their most recent music edit (previously their primary editing interest) was in . I guess it {{em|could}} be a compromised account but I think it's probably not ] (]) 22:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I have indefinitely blocked KirillMarasin for persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. By "poorly sourced", I mean shockingly bad sources. This editor's history is strange. The editor was moderately active in the video game topic area 12 to 14 years ago and then effectively disappeared. After their return in December, their sole focus has been spreading nonsense about sexuality and "conversion therapy". At this point, they are not competent to build the encyclopedia. ] (]) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I've seen people offer established accounts for sale, maybe that's what happened here? ]&nbsp;] 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I find it more likely this is someone who fell into the "redpill" community and decided to come back to Misplaced Pages to ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:They have been somewhat active on ruwiki and actually got a warning over homophobia on their talk page in July 2023. See: ]. ] (]) 00:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I feel it unlikely anyone paid for this account, why would someone pay for an account then say such clueless stuff? There's also the fact the 2018 stuff seem similar enough. I don't know if the Russian editing could be a factor in why they're so confused. Are sourcing standards weaker or is the OR not outright forbidden on the Russian wikipedia? I'd hope no wikipedia allows Reddit let alone 4chan, the same with OR, for medical information but I could imagine some allowing at least Reddit along with some forms of OR for gaming related stuff. (I mean we don't consider simple plot summaries from OR.) In any case, I'm fairly sure this isn't the first editor we've had who was sort of okay while editing some stuff but who's editing fell apart when it was something they particularly cared about. ] (]) 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::The contribution that got him the warning on ruwiki was not about adding content, but about removing content (regarding child adoption by gay couples) accompanied by a discriminatory comment towards LGBTQ+ people in the edit summary (translation of the comment: "removing disgusting content").
			*:::Generally speaking, they only have 196 edits on ruwiki versus 3,351 on enwiki, so I wouldn't expect that differences in sourcing standards on ruwiki could have any notable effect on his editing on enwiki.
			*:::I only brought up ruwiki to point out that he has been active there, while he seemed to have "disappeared" on enwiki. Meaning, the account might not be compromised, i.e. it's not an account that suddenly returned from wiki-retirement, but an account that probably was consistently active throughout the years, even if at low activity level, and the LGBTQ+ issue also doesn't seem to be an out-of-character new development. ] (]) 20:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: Community ban for KirillMarasin ===
			{{atop|status=Community banned|1=By the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, {{u|KirillMarasin}} is ]. The ban may be appealed no sooner than six months from this date. If the ban is successfully appealed, a ] on GENSEX and sexual health matters, broadly construed, shall remain in force. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			For seeming ] and ] issues, I proposed that KirillMarasin be community banned. ] (]) 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nom. Also support a GENSEX TBAN. ] (]) 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			* (edit conflict) I propose a ''']''' on all editing, appealable no sooner than six months from now. I also propose a ''']''' on ] and on sexual health matters, broadly construed. That topic ban would be appealable no sooner than six months ''and'' 500 constructive article edits after the community ban was lifted. Comment: There are significant problems with this user's editing. These are deeply concerning given the length of time this account has been active. Claiming 4chan is a reasonable source to use, claiming personal experience is a reasonable source, etc. Before any unban, I'd expect to see a convincing argument from KirillMarasin that they understand what was wrong with their edits ''and'' with the sourcing of their edits. Frankly, this doesn't cover all the bases. There are other serious concerns here. But... it would be a start. --] (]) 20:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' as per Hemiauchenia's reasonings. ] (] - ]) 20:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nom, using Reddit and 4chan as sources in this topic area is totally unacceptable, and then claiming they've tried it is unbelievable, honestly, I think we're being trolled here.]] 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Even now, I see no indication that he understands what the problems really are. I'm not sure about the question of trolling. It certainly had crossed my mind but, given that he appears to be Belarusian, it might be that he is merely be reproducing lies taught to him as facts in school. If so, I feel at least some sympathy for him but that doesn't change the outcome here. He has had enough warnings. You can't be citing Reddit and 4chan, especially for medical or medical adjacent subjects, and expect to remain an editor in good standing. --] (]) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Even in Belarus I have a hard time believing anyone thinks tapeworms give you homosexuality which can then be cured by eating garlic. He’s either ''deep'' in the redpill conspiracy rabbit hole (and falling for a /pol/ shitpost) or a troll himself. ] (]) 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Note''' I have indefinitely blocked this editor. The community ban discussion should proceed. ] (]) 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support a community ban from en.wp with a requirement of a GENSEX tban if subsequently lifted.''' This is either incompetence, trolling or both. ] (]) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' but endorse the block. At this point, the only difference between a community ban and the current block is how the editor can appeal. A block would be reviewed by an uninvolved admin, while a ban would be reviewed by the community. I support bans when I feel that the appeal shouldn't be reviewed by a single admin, but this case is pretty garden-variety and I see no need to involve the community in a review of any appeals. See the table at ] —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:No, this case is not "pretty garden-variety", it is absolutely appalling that an editor is using social media platforms as sources in this topic area, and dubiously claiming they have tried it on themselves. I am uncomfortable with a single admin reviewing any appeal, the community should have a say in this matter.]] 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yes, it is appalling. By "garden-variety", I meant the issue is simple to analyze and an unblock review would have clear criteria to be successful. I think of community bans when I see problem editors who admins have failed to block for some reason, or editors who have caused widespread disruption affecting many users and pages. On the other hand, if you are concerned about having a single admin review the appeal, then a community ban is quite appropriate. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Behavior is completely beyond the pail of acceptability. ] (]) 22:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Weak support''' I sort of agree with rsjaffe that this seems simple enough that I'm not afraid of leaving it for an admin to handle the unblock. I mean when an editor twice tells us they tested something on themselves, it's a clear sign the editor's understanding of even the basics of how we create Misplaced Pages even after a long time and 3000+ are so poor it's going to take a for them to get back. And that's being very generous and assuming they just didn't recognise the RS acronym rather than not even being aware of the term 'reliable source'. Which even being that generous they still didn't understand the concept putting aside OR given 4chan etc. However unlike rsjaffe I don't see a harm in a cban and given that this discussion was started before the indef, I feel it's fine to continue it as noted by the admin. ] (]) 03:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' (and I endorse Culln328's block as an administrator). To have returned after many years of absence solely to push conversion therapy pseudoscience using the least reliable sourcing imaginable clearly violates so many policies and guidelines that unblocking should require the confidence of the community. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 05:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' CBAN (and endorse indef) - promotion of fringe ideas and POVpushing like this has no place on wikipedia. The ] issues are the cherry on top. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 06:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' Having read more of the discussion in the previous section, I agree, reluctantly, that a CBAN is the only way forward here. &mdash; ] (]) 10:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Promoting conversion therapy, along with the RU wiki issues, tells me this person needs to be kept away from our community until they've had a substantial amount of growth. This isn't something any admin should be able to revoke on their own, the community needs to be involved before this person comes back. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:If anything, with your proposal, the likelihood is that the outside editors would leave something overly-open to gaming - turning "a few months down the track" into "a few weeks down the track" at best because people like Martin will immediately start to game your resulting rule.
			:'''Support''' homophobia (implicit here, made explicit on ruwiki) and promotion of homophobic fringe nonsense. Use of 4chan, ] and Reddit as sources shows severe ] issues as well if it’s not outright trolling. ] (]) 18:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Most regulars - myself included - never bring this topic up because we know how poisonous it is. But some insist upon it. The last four and a half years have convinced me that the only way to avoid being right back where we are now in a few months' time is a topic ban for those who keep on bringing it up - and right now, that's mostly Martin. If admins were willing enact such topic bans, we might be able to see an end to it. But they aren't, so we won't. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			{{abot}}
			== History of disruptive COI editing ==
	<s>==== FFS WHY DO ADMINS NEVER EVER DEAL WITH LAME SHIT LIKE THIS ????????????????????????????????? ====</s>
			I didn't wanted to go through this, but I'm done being patient. There appears to be a long history of disruptive COI editing by {{u|Armandogoa}} on his father's article ]. He usually edits this page after every few months or so, and seems to add unreferenced content as per his latest edit done on the page here . I had many of his edits reverted myself.
	==== Please deal with the issue of metric obsession ====
			I also did place a COI warning on his talk page over a year ago . But he seems to not understand it this way. His father is an active politician, and considering our ] policies, I think this editor should be blocked to prevent any other controversial or peacock material added in the future. ]<sup>2003</sup>(]) 07:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm here because of this message on my talk page. One of the main reasons I'm retired is quite simply I tired of ] shit like this. Please do something, ] and ] should be indefinitely topic banned from anything to do with units on any topic, both have paralysed articles on many subjects for months. Having failed to convince wikipedia to go metric, they're trying to do it by the back door. It drives genuine editors nuts in frustration. It may seem lame, it may seem dull, it may seem stupid, TBH it is, but it stops people who have a genuine interest in improving wikipedia from doing so. ] <small>]</small> 16:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			:Hello, ],
	*From the discussion above, Kahastok has caused as many problems as the two you're desperate to have topic banned. If you're retired, why does it matter to you who is topic banned and who isn't? Also, this thread hadn't been edited for a day; so you've just given the chance for more dramah to ensue. Well done you. ] ] 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			:You'd probably get more of a response if you provided diffs of edits of this "long history of disruptive COI editing" you are concerned about. I don't see the one edit you listed as egregious, anyone could proably find a source for a politician's promotion since they are public figures. It doesn't seem "controversial" or "peacock" to me. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Also, isn't participating in this thread violating ''your'' topic ban on anything to do with the Falklands? ] ] 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			::Hi @], we both know that per ] we shouldn't edit articles we have ]. Be it in good or bad faith, I believe generally editors should avoid editing. They should leave that to third party editors like us. He could had make a request to have any material added to his father's article.
	::I wish to protest about this foul-mouthed attack by ]. Foul-mouthed ranting without providing a skerrick of evidence is not normal behaviour. I have not had any dealings with WCM for months, so I cannot understand why he is behaving in this way.] (]) 06:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::As far as his editing history goes, he first started editing in 2022 see here . If you see his edits thereafter all of them are unsourced and most likely come under ]. He then edited again in 2023 see , by this time he was already warned. But he still tries to ignore the warning and continues with his editing. His last edit was in 2024 .
			::I wouldn't had a problem if he did this additions to some other article other than his father's. Knowing the COI rules, I think he should be blocked. We never know when his editing behaviour might be a much problem for us in the near future. Especially considering the article's low value for editorial oversight. ]<sup>2003</sup>(]) 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'd say that's enough repeat violations that ] should be pblocked from the article, and only allowed to suggest edits on the Talk page. It's not enough for a site block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:<del>I think it's worth pointing out that this account has made only 39 edits over a period of more than 4 years, and the most recent one was nearly 3 months before this report was filed unless there are deleted edits I'm not privy to. COI or not (and I agree with the initial poster that there's a COI), I think ] is worth keeping in mind here. --] (]) 09:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)</del> Rescinding. 39 edits isn't a lot, but 4 years is a long time. --] (]) 17:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Uncivil behavior ==
	To reiterate, my comment made in frustration was about an attempt to drag me back to a discussion I dearly did not want to revisit again, for my language I apologise to the community. Really it is] and its been a ] edit war on oh so many topics.
	I will amplify my comment that ] and ] should be banned from anything to do with ] or articles relating to units as their advocacy of the metric system leads to damage to wikipedia as a project. The current Falkland Islands discussion is simply another manifestation of it (that I am not allowed to comment on so will not), another example is ] (a Munro is a mountain in Scotland with a height over 3,000 ft), where ] edited the article to give preference to the metric system (so the lede now gives the definition in one order and the rest of it in the other). This is justified by Michael by what he refers to as his personal policy of "Source Based Units", ie the edit should be based on the source not ]. It has also touched on premier league football, with editing to change height to give preference to metric first in contravention of ]. Petty as their campaign may be, its also infuriating and irritating for anyone concerned with article quality. They have caused numerous problems at ] with various proposals to metricate wikipedia and cannot accept it it doesn't have consensus. Both need to realise they are damaging the project with their obsessive behaviour and stop it or alternatively the community should stop it. ] <small>]</small> 12:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Now that i have challenged WCM to produce evidence, all he can come up with are edits that have been in place for months or years and proposals to MOSNUM, which I have a right to make, whether or not he agrees with them. The rest of his rant is not worth replying to. ] (]) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:*Surely WCM bringing up the issues at the Falkland Islands discussion, even if the very first bit wasn't, is violating their topic ban from everything to do with the islands? ] ] 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{ping|Jasper_Deng}} has been continually bludgeoning a conversation about a page rename, casting unsupported aspersions, acting uncivilly, and newcomers (me).
	:::Given that you were insisting on ] above, and have since accused me of having "caused as many problems" as others, based on what appears solely to be your own totally inaccurate claims, I think this comment needs to be taken with a fair dose of salt. The fact that someone has a problem with a sockpuppeteer does not mean that they are incapable of causing problems themselves. Here they are. The fact that a good and productive editor like Curry Monster is topic-banned, but an editor who does little with these articles but repeatedly bring up the same point over and over again (gaming the system every time) is not, is an indictment of Misplaced Pages's administrative system. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			'''Teahouse'''
	== BLP violations at ] (again). ==
			During a lively discussion about a , it occurred to me that I might be able to improve this encyclopedia by starting a conversations that could '''POTENTIALLY''' lead to future guidance or policy regarding how to name natural disaster articles.
	:{{user|Shakespeare21}}
	:{{la|Patricia Cloherty}}
			They followed me to the teahouse and:
	The history of this article is extensive so please work with me as I try to summarise it quickly. The subject requested ] last year because it had been the constant focus of BLP violations, attacks and vandalism. I and a couple of others volunteered to ] and we set about removing the violations and properly sourcing as many of the claims as we could. Throughout that effort and thereafter, a ] tried everything he could to retain the BLP violations and was eventually threatened with a block on 5 January this year. Four days later, a new ] showed up (]) and slowly started editing a related BLP. Eventually he started editing Cloherty's article. He insists that is when the source itself clearly says it's the ''"Full text of Inslaw's Rebuttal to the Bua Report"''. It's hosted on this professional looking site - {{url|http://www.copi.com/}}. I've spent the better part of a year trying to defend this BLP from constant vandalism and slow-moving edit wars by SPA's who have an issue with the subject (and it has been since 2009). The ] from the editor is obvious (it has been referred to SPI but the older account is stale) given the claims of "controversy" he is trying to insert are exactly the same as previous accounts/IPs. in an effort to edit-war his "controversy" claim into the article. Request more admin eyes, blocks, protection, whatever. This is getting really old.
	INB4 "this is a content dispute" - no, this is the continuation of a campaign to attack a BLP with just about the worst sources available because of some off-wiki drama. I'm ] and have zero connection to the subject (though I have been accused by previous SPAs of "working" for her) other than my interest in the original AFD. ]] 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I protected this article a while ago because of BLP violations and it's disappointing to see this happening again. Unfortunately I didn't keep it on my watchlist. The source being used is which is clearly not a RS for a BLP (or probably for almost anything), and the link may be copyvio (or forged, or whatever, again not an RS for a BLP). I've reverted and may have to protect again. ] (]) 11:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
			*Bludgeoned me
	And is his latest effort in the related BLP - using a claimed inaccuracy in one section to remove content from a ''different'' section of well-sourced (to the ]) but positive commentary. ]] 10:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
			*casted aspersions {{tq| it is frowned upon to post about an ongoing decision making discussion elsewhere (unless it is to raise serious misconduct concerns) as it could be considered WP:CANVASSING, particularly when the incipient consensus is leaning against your position}} You'll note that my post in the teahouse was asking how to start a conversation about potential future policy improvements, not at all about the ongoing conversation. And even if it were, the practice is quite common on noticeboards, why would it be any different in the teahouse such that it would be WP:CANVASSING?
	: Bad edit summary and bad removal, even if the prose wasn't the best. Reducing the role played may make sense for some if its a peacock problem, but the text was a bit wordy so I am going to AGF for that particular one. ] (]) 04:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Yeah, the issue isn't whether the BLP needs work generally (it does), it's the sneaky removal of unrelated content. Anyway, has been undone by ] with the addition of a source for the first claim and the reinstatement of the second claim and its source. The account has not edited since Doug's last warning. ]] 08:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::They have now, replying to Doug on their talk. This is an extreme newbie — while they've been here since January, they've only made 17 edits — who claims to be a historian. On the good faith assumption that they're ''not'' a sock, please educate them gently about Misplaced Pages rules. I've written a more specific invitation to this discussion on their talk. (I've never cared for the usual template that merely says there's a discussion at ANI — not very helpful to newbies! ANI is long and confusing.) ] &#124; ] 10:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC).
			In the process they said {{tq|Don't overthink this}} to me.
	I do not understand why you consider federal testimony in a federal investigation to be unreliable sources. Are you kidding? I am a historian writing a book on these topics and it appears that you have not read the sourced material thoroughly. Otherwise, you would not have deleted my updates to Misplaced Pages. Can you please take a moment and actually read the references that support what I am updating. For some reason, you keep reverting back to the incorrect information which ultimately makes Misplaced Pages useless. Regarding Inslaw, it is already referred to as the Inslaw Affair and noted as "controversial" in Wikimedia (which I am assuming is associated with Misplaced Pages). I have read you comment to Doug Weller and I appreciate it if you would include me in the discussion of the correct information. I am using information which is widely available on the internet and from other sources. Yes, Cloherty was involved in the controversial INSLAW affair, but there is not judgement being made. It is simply stating a fact which the business community is well aware of. She was not "a" shareholder....she was the majority shareholder which is why she is closely associated with this affair. This is a historical fact, not opinion.
			To which I replied {{tq|Please do not patronize me by suggesting I am overthinking this, and please don't WP:BLUDGEON me by responding to every comment I've made to someone else regarding this.}}
	Regarding Dmitriev, the source which is linked to the statement is not accurate and does not support the statement. Please read the actual source...if it does not have anything to do with the statement made, then it is not properly referenced. Please open and read the references that support the published material....they clearly have nothing to do with the statements being made in the text unless you have imagining something which I am not seeing on my computer. May you please comment on this or post the supposed Wall Street Journal reference you are referring to (because it is not on the Misplaced Pages page).
	I discovered the mistakes on Misplaced Pages because I am a historian writing a book on this topic and noted these errors while I was doing my research] (]) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21
			*They then me by again saying in part {{tq|I'm afraid you are overthinking it}}
	:On ], you claim to be writing a book about the subject {{dubious}} but seem not to have read the article itself where there is no mention of "federal testimony". Instead, you offered completely unreliable source to ] your claim (which just happens to be the same claim as other ] have tried to spam into the article since <u>2009</u>). , I think, speaks volumes about the credibility of your claims that, 1. You are writing a book about Cloherty, and; 2. You are not a ] or ] puppet of the previous users who have tried to vandalise the article in exactly the same way. Again, I don't know if it is a language barrier but you claim to be a writer with an interest in international business and yet you don't seem to understand the grammatical dead-end in suggesting that someone is a "shareholder in an affair" (as opposed to being a shareholder in a company involved in an affair).
			* and made continued, unsupported, exaggerated claims of misconduct against me {{tq|Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".}}
			'''Talk page'''
	:On ], you made which changed some text with regard to a source you have queried (fine, though a source has since been added) and removed the second paragraph of the lede and two sources along with it (the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times). I'm happy for you to query those too, but removing that section and feigning ignorance about removing a whole other paragraph isn't very convincing.
			Back on the talk page, they:
	:I'm happy to ] but not to the point of stupidity and there are red flags all over this. You claim to be a writer but struggle with writing, you claim to understand sourcing while adding clearly dubious sources, you claim to be new but appeared 5 days after the last anti-Cloherty spammer disappeared, you claim not to have noticed your own removal of content but pro-actively reverted edits that repaired that damage, you claim to be using ''"information which is widely available on the internet"'' but have tried to include obscure (and that's being generous) sources from private websites that haven't been updated in more than a decade. Or... you could just be yet another incarnation of ] (which is what your "everything marked as a minor edit" style screams - which, coincidently, you continued until I mentioned it at SPI). But hey, whatever. ]] 05:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			* by replying to my vote
			*
			*Bludgeoned another editor as well
			*Collapsed their bludgeoning with a close note that they agree (with themself?) that their comments were {{tq|more than necessary after taking a second look}}
			Just recently I noticed they
	::Again, I ask that you actually study the subject before drawing opinions. Inslaw is a Washington-based technology company of which Cloherty was the main shareholder. The incident was called "the Inslaw Affair" and a federal investigation was conducted. The conclusions of this investigation were named "the Bua Report". If you put the word "Inslaw" into Misplaced Pages, there is an entire section which clearly explains about Inslaw. Your comments towards me are clearly unjustified because you have not researched the topic and are you seem to be more intent on proving that you are right rather than ensuring that Misplaced Pages is up to date and contains accurate information. For the sake of accuracy, just state that you did not read thoroughly the material and move on. I have no idea what you are talking about on the other points but it appears to be paranoia or maybe you have issues which have nothing to do with me. And yes, I am an academic and historian who conducts thorough research and actually reads material before I start posting comments.] (]) 07:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21
			'''So I warned them to stop bludgeoning on their talk page'''
	:::{{facepalm}}. Exactly. She is a shareholder in the ''company'', not the ''affair''. Which makes your edit drawing attention to the ''"INSLAW affair of which she was a major shareholder"'' either grammatically strained (at best) or bad-faith. Either way, edit-warring to keep your mistake in the article was silly. Have you actually gone back and had a look at the result of your edits you are trying to defend? Multiple people have already told you that your source (given where it was "published") is not a ]. And that's before we get anywhere near the fact that ] testimony would be exactly that - a primary source, requiring ] to interpret. We'll chalk the other stuff up to a series of very, very strange coincidences, shall we? I'm done - if others want to help you edit disruptively in a BLP, I'll not stand in their way. ]] 09:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			In the edit note, they:
	::::Thank you Stalwart111 for finally agreeing with my points] (]) 17:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Shakespeare21
			*Again tried to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor {{tq|As someone who is still rather inexperienced you should not be attempting to warn experienced editors like me.}}
	:::::If you really think that is what I was doing with the above comment then there's likely nothing anyone can do to help you. ]] 23:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			*Cast aspersions and threatened me with a block {{tq|Your comment here is grossly uncivil and if you ever comment like this again you will be the one considered for a block.}}
	== User at it again with unapproved BOT activity ==
			:
	I previous listed user for unapproved BOT activity. He's at it again, this time creating redirects for no reason other then because one letter might be confused for another. The sole point of the redirect is so that if someone types a g instead of a k that they're redirected. Nothing else, and done for every article. It's the most ridiculous reason to create tons of redirects I've seen, combined with the fact it's obvious that some sort of BOT/Unapproved tool is being used (There where over twenty edits within the span of one minute alone that I counted) it's just aggravating. Plus he's at it again adding one line articles based on a BOT run of a census list. Also some of the edit summaries seem to plainly indicate he's using programing from DarafshBot a BOT that was indef. blocked because of errors and lack of understanding of the user. He just does not seem to get what he's doing is not correct. ] (]) 07:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	:This is a ]! i cant understood reason of this discussion, i move some page into another page because they had WRONG NAME. you dont see any difference between '''New York''' and '''Nevo uork''' ?!? Haft'''g'''el is wrong name, Haft'''k'''el is true.
	:about creating article, i said befor'; I creat this article with a template manually.
	:You despondent me to editing en.wiki :( ] (]) 07:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			*Casting aspersions and threatening me with a block again {{tq|
	::Darafsh is correct that these are ''not'' redirects, but page moves. That said, Darafsh, how are you carrying out these moves? They seem quite fast. ] (]) 07:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			Posting that WP:SHOUTING on my talk page is grossly uncivil and unwarranted and will get you blocked the next time you do that.}}
	:::Yes i moves that, i dont creat new redirect straight. actully i dont know! i open the pages, select "Move" on top of them and click it, then replace "g" and "k", That's it. ] (]) 07:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			*And again attempted to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor {{tq|But you are in absolutely no position to attempt to enjoin me from further participation in that process. You do not understand the policies and guidelines you're trying to warn me about; don't pretend that you do (especially with respect to WP:OWN).}}
	Sorry but what I was seeing where redirect pages, yes there where also page moves, but there where numerous redirect pages created. Also the issue with creates/moves is still valid. There is some sort of automatic tool/BOT being used. There's no way possible for anything else to be concluded, and even if it can't be shown it still violates the BOT policy because anything of a mass change/create should be approved before it's done. I'm sorry you think I'm hounding you, I had forgotten about you actually till I was looking at new pages and saw the same activity again. ] (]) 08:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC) I should note that the original page name was kept with a redirect to the new moved page. This is why I'm calling them redirects. ] (]) 08:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			*And again, cast more unsupported aspersions in an uncivil manner {{tq|Coming to my talk page unprompted and without the other user's involvement is crossing the line to you harassing me. Cut it out.}}
	:So you are in wrong. i dont use any tool or BOT, i just try to make useful contributions. for redirects, i just use move in top up the pages and never use BOT or tool. i dont know how i can prove it. ] (]) 08:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	Even if not using a BOT the BOT policy still applies to the mass changes/adds that are being done. Add in the fact that in some of your descriptions DarafshBot's templates are being listed as used and it makes a case when combined with more then 20 edits in one minute alone. ] (]) 08:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	:*Caffeyw, why do you insist on emphasizing the word BOT every time you post? ] ] 08:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	::*Probably cos of ]. ]] 08:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
			This has been an upsetting experience for me. Perhaps I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia.] (]) 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{od}} {{ping|درفش کاویانی}}, I seriously suggest you slow down '''right now''', whether you are using a bot or not. Your mass, unexplained page moves, as well as your mass creation of borderline-notable stubs (pretty much one a minute!) could become disruptive. ]] 08:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I respect your decision and contribute slowly. but you know, im not disruptive :-) ] (]) 09:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I know, that's why I'm saying it ''could'' become disruptive i.e. in the future. When moving pages, you should explain ''why'' - and you should not create so many articles in such a short space of time, it implies you are not taking time over them. ]] 09:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Sure, i follow your recommendation. Thanks ] (]) 09:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	**All I ask is an acknowledgment that regardless of if it's a BOT, a tool, or super human powers that the BOT policy still applies. Mass creates require prior approval to determine if they're wanted. Also since not an approved BOT each edit should show human interaction. (This is where I have a truly hard time since at 05:24 the user had 23 edits, which is one every 2.6 seconds) I'm happy as long as there's an acknowledgment so that if it continues, we can say he's been told twice now to stop it. Lest anyone think otherwise, I do truly believe he's working to try and better Wiki, I just think he needs to slow it down and get approvals for mass creates to ensure smooth operations of the Wiki. ] (]) 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
	***you do realize that anyone can open multiple tabs, make the edits, and save them sequentially. the actual editing would take a normal amount of time, he's just doing multiple edits at once. not that hard. -- ]<sup>] - ]</sup> 05:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	****Indeed. I once performed north of 50 edits in a minute without using any other automation than my fingers, keyboard, mouse and browser tabs. It isn't hard to do. I actually find it more efficient to operate in this way when I am doing repetitive tasks. Just because something ''looks'' like a bot doesn't make it a bot. I have no comment on the issue of the redirects/pagemoves. --] (]) 16:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::*I suppose the major distinction is whether these edits were done in batches, or continuously at a rate of 20+ a minute. The former doesn't rule out a bot, of course; but the latter is definitely a bot. ] ] 21:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
			'''''Edit to add: it has been brought to my attention that posting on this board comes with the expectation that I am seeking a ban/punishment. I am not. I am simply seeking an end tothe behavior I described below.'''''
	] has some severe WP:OWN issues with ], and I was at least the third editor to point out ownership issues, to then be dismissed rudely out of hand, as more recently ] was also treated. Apparently we the unwashed masses do not know near as much about WPMOS and POV as does User:Neo ^.
			'''''I posted here because suggests that conduct policy violations can only be posted here, or arbitration (unless it is edit warring). Further the WP:DRN states it is for content disputes only.'''''
	I came to the article as an interesting topic with which I have some connection. It was ''and is'' awash in unnecessary bolding, filled with claims to "famous" and "well-known" personages who do not have a Misplaced Pages article, and chock full of POV. The term "Osmanian occupation", aside from being the wrong demonym in English, is a loaded term.
			'''''Thank you, and my apologies for any confusion my venue selection has caused.'''''
	I cleaned up some of the more obvious problems, but they were reverted by User:Neo ^. User:Cplakidas cleaned it up and was likewise treated.
			] (]) 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	On the article's talkpage, I first calmly explained that "unfortunately", "famous" and other such buzzwords are POV and have no place in an encyclopedia. It escalated, I dropped it but watch the article for more evidence of such behavior.
			:After leaving making this post, I noticed @] also left a comment ''about'' me, casting even more aspersions in a thread I started on @]'s talk page that had absolutely nothing to do with @]:
	The article really needs a good hard looking over by an MOS expert at least.--] (]) 12:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			:{{tq|This user needs mentorship as they are flying too close to the sun. The comment I just removed from my talk page and the one I left them at User talk:Delectopierre#Stop suggests that I am not the most effective one to convey that to them. My participation in the RM isn't that unusual and I consider their comments highly condescending and, now, aggressive to the point that I will want to see them blocked if they do it again.}} ] (]) 12:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Both users are right: Jasper Deng when they say, "I am not the most effective one to convey that to them", and Delectopierre when saying, "Perhaps I am too sensitive". ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] Can you help me understand what it is that I need conveyed to me?
			:::I did not chose to be this sensitive. Frankly it is because of things that happened to me as a child.
			:::It is not an enjoyable way to live my life, and I am actively working to improve my mental health on a daily basis. That said, it is who I am right now. I know this about myself, which is why when this all began I said to myself ''What can I work on related to this article, where I won't have to interact with Jasper?'' That's when they followed me to the teahouse. ] (]) 18:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My impression, based on this brouhaha: you are easily offended, but at the same time keen to tell off others. Bad combination. While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page, but at the same time tacks unrelated complaints about you onto conversations not involving him. Bad combination. From the unassailable heights of my own moral perfection, I suggest you both simmer down and get back to editing. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq| get back to editing }}
			::I attempted to do so, by no longer focusing my efforts the article, but rather discussion of future policy/guidance. Jasper followed me there and repeated language that I ''specifically'' asked them not to, and accused me of canvassing, among other things.
			::And to be clear, as I stated above, I am ] who repeatedly asked Jasper to stop bludgeoning {{tq|So you continue. Very collaborative of you. "Vote my vote, or be harassed."}} ] (]) 18:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Just want to add one more thing: {{tq|While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page}} is posting one warning on a talk page haranguing? Whether Jasper's behavior is a policy violation or not, in good faith I believe it to be, so I posted on his talk page. I'm genuinely asking: I thought that's what I'm supposed to do to try to resolve disputes, but is your guidance that it's haranguing to do so? ] (]) 23:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:These kinds of interactions are not uncommon here (this is the internet, after all) and I suggest you two adopt a voluntary IBan policy and give each other a wide berth. I wouldn't be surprised if every editor on this project has other editors that get under their skin and most of us handle it by choosing not to interact with them. Yes, a therapist would advise against pure avoidance but this project functions, in great part, because our editors avoid others who get on their last nerve. I know that this isn't the slap down punishment that you seem to be seeking but if every editor quit because another editor cast aspersions, we wouldn't have any editors left. Civility is a goal to aspire to but it's not always embodied on this project.
			:I have invited Jasper Deng to participate here and I'm hoping we can get to the point where you two can simply disengage with each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::thank you for your reply. I am not seeking a slap down, or punishment. I would like the behaviors to stop.
			::could you clarify what you mean that civility is a goal to aspire to? my reading of the policies is that civilly is a policy, not a goal. If that’s not the case, then I’ll need to reevaluate my participation. ] (]) 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I am involved here as a participant in the naming discussion. Also this disagreement among editors has spilled over to my talk page. Civility is not always a black or white matter and there are many shades of gray, as reading all of ] shows. A relevant passage is {{tpq|Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences, some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged.}} I think that dynamic is at play here between these two editors. The disagreements concern the current wildfire catastrophe in the Los Angeles area and it is obvious that the emotions of many Californians and wildfire editors are raw, myself included. Some of us are better at masking that than others. I think that it would be wise for these two editors to steer clear of each other, and for all editors working on this literally hot topic area to check themselves and to avoid bludgeoning, being pedantic and being snide with one another. In my view, formal complaints alleging incivility are best limited to instances when the incivility is obvious to uninvolved editors. ] (]) 22:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks for chiming in. A few things:
			::::*{{tq|In my view, formal complaints alleging incivility}}
			:::::*I'm unsure of how else to get the behavior to stop, and I am unsure of what rises to the level of a post here or not. Are there guidelines/examples I can look at?
			::::::This is the second time now that I have experienced -- what to me appeared to be a black and white policy violation -- only to be told essentially 'oh that doesn't rise to the level.' I ''think'' I'm intelligent enough to understand policies, and it is only behavioral policy that I have experienced to have some secret code that I can't seem understand. Other policy seems to be applied directly by the letter of the policy. I don't know what else to do. Like I said, I know I am a sensitive person, but shouldn't there be a place on wikipedia for sensitive people too? It's helpful for me to know what the rules are, and I thought I did.
			::::*{{tq|limited to instances when the incivility is obvious to uninvolved editors}}
			::::::*Just to give you insight into my thought process: I first posted in teahouse about a policy conversation so that I could edit without interacting with Jasper. I tried to put myself in an area where I wouldn't need to interact with them. They followed me there.
			::::::*Next, when an experienced editor appeared to agree with me that ] I felt that was a policy violation. But I did not make a post and decided to let it go, so long as the debate continued to evolve unimpeded.
			:::::::I saw what appeared to be bludgeoning/tendentious editing again, after both an experienced editor and I told Jasper to cut it out on the talk page and in the teahouse. I see now that it wasn't great judgement of mine to re-invovle myself by warning Jasper, and I will try to think better about that in the future -- and not edit so late at night when I'm tired.
			:::::::*However it was only ''after'' that experienced editor also told them to cut it out, AND I saw what -- to me -- appeared to be bludgeoning/tendentious editing, that I tried to warn them on their talk page. They of course didn't reply on their talk page, but deleted my post, and posted on my talk page instead saying that it was improper of me to post on their talk page. I saw that as Jasper trying to intimidate me on my ''own'' talk page. Essentially saying 'you don't have rights' or 'the policies don't apply to me, newb.' But isn't the process that when an editor is having difficulty with someone, they are meant to post on that editors talk page to discuss it? By deleting my post and saying they will get me banned if I post on their talk page again, that because I'm new I don't have to right to do so, I felt they were trying to intimidate me, and I '''experienced''' that as cyberbullying. (To be clear: I am not making an objective judgement, nor am I pointing to a WP Policy, as to my knowledge, there is no policy that specifically discusses cyberbullying. Just stating my experience.)
			::::::::But it was my experience, it seemed to be against policy, and I wanted the behavior to stop.
			:::::::*I am unsure of how else to get this type of behavior to stop, especially after they followed me to the teahouse and I told them stop, but they said essentially 'nah I'm gonna keep doing it.'
			::::::::Where can I go to discuss wildfires that they won't follow me? This is an important topic to me, along with millions of others. I believe you live in CA - I do too.
			::::::::All that said, at any point Jasper could ''also'' have stopped. ]. But that is not what occurred.
			::::*Lastly I'll say this: {{tq|The disagreements concern the current wildfire catastrophe}}
			:::::*Yes, that is how it started. But I do '''not''' have concerns about rules being applied incorrectly when it comes to content. I see a lively discussion. I may not agree with the majority there - that's fine! Good, even. But that doesn't mean I'm okay with other editors controlling the process, nor acting uncivilly towards me.
			::::*My apologies for the verbosity. I think it would be helpful, if anyone experienced is willing, to let me know where in my thought process I went astray in addition to the place I already pointed out that I could have exercised better judgement. It would also be helpful if anyone experienced could point me to a way to get this type of behavior to stop, as well as somewhere I can see what type of behavior violates policy and and should be posted here, and what type of behavior does not.
			::::] (]) 23:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::A suggestion, which I hope is taken as well-intentioned and constructive: if your posts on other fora are as long-winded as the above that may frustrate other editors. Suggest aiming for greater conciseness. ] (]) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yes I understand and mentioned that myself. I am confused about where I can get help stopping upsetting behavior, and because of the reception I got, am unsure of what to do other than offer my thought process so that I can better understand what I can do better in the future. ] (]) 00:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|This is the second time now that I have experienced -- what to me appeared to be a black and white policy violation -- only to be told essentially 'oh that doesn't rise to the level}}
			:::::As the person who was brought here less than two weeks ago for what was the first instance, I may not be the best person to reply but I wanted to give advice on this {{tq|Like I said, I know I am a sensitive person, but shouldn't there be a place on wikipedia for sensitive people too?}}
			:::::It is easy to get emotionally involved in articles and get down the rabbit hole of being too wrapped up in policies. I understand your stance in this instance and understand Jaspers as well, but sometimes it is easier just to disengage with editors rather than being 'right' or getting the last word. And it is also sometimes advisable to take a ] if you feel you are too involved or it is affecting your mental health (It is one of the templates on that page, as is feeling discouraged). Literally no one would fault you for that. Best of luck to you.
			:::::] (]) 01:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''tl;dr: my experience with Jasper is part of a clear pattern of behavior.'''
			:As I mentioned, I posted here because I wanted the behavior to stop, so I do not do any sort of deep dive on Jasper's page or behavior. However I saw ] by @], and I wanted to look at it. It wasn't in the archive on Jasper's talk page (or at least I couldn't find it there, not sure if I searched correctly). So I took a look at his talk page history. It quickly became clear that some of the things I experienced from Jasper are clearly part of a larger pattern of behavior. I didn't want to spend too long on this, so there may be more behavior there, and to be clear, this is only from looking at the edit history on his talk page:
			:<br>
			:: 1. He has (judging by other's comments on Jaspers talk page) a pattern of behavior that upsets others. After this occurs, other editors will leave a message on his talk page, and he will not only ''not'' engage in a conversation with them, he will remove the comment (rather than allowing it to get archived) with either an antagonistic or very generic edit summary.
			:<br>
			:: 2. Jasper has a pattern -- again based on his comments -- of taking personal offense to people he has disagreements with leaving messages on his talk page to try to discuss the issue. In some instances, it appears as though this has been followed by immediate messages on ''their'' talk pages, indicating (to me) that it is only his talk page where issues cannot be discussed.
			:<br>
			:: 3. In these instances, some of Jasper's edit summaries have the effect of silencing other wikipedians who, in good faith, attempted to discuss issues with him on his talk page. As we all know, one cannot respond to an edit summary in the same venue, leading the editor with two options:
			::: a. Take the time to compile their original comments, diffs, Jasper's edit summaries, etc. and finding a new venue for the discussion, where Jasper may or may not participate.
			::: b. Make a new post on Jasper's talk page, despite him telling them not to, which gives Jasper ammunition tat the other editor did something wrong.
			:<br>
			:: 4. Whether on purpose, or as an unintended consequence of this behavior, this has created an appearance -- on the surface -- that Jasper doesn't cause any problems with other editors on wikipedia. Based on the following quotes, and from my experience, this is not the case.
			:<br>
			:::1. @]
			:::{{tq|Gaslighting}}
			:::{{tq|I recommend not making comments telling someone "no, you just didn't read my comment properly" in a condescending fashion}}
			:::{{tq|And, by the way, stop accusing now three users of edit-warring when you are the only one making hasty reverts}} ]
			:<br>
			:::2. @]
			:::{{tq|I request that you link that discussion, especially since you are bashing me over the head with it and yet you have failed to actually provide a link to this discussion}}
			::::Jasper's edit summary in removing that comment {{tq|Request for discussion: proof was provided at AN3, please keep discussion centralized. You really ought to look at your *own* conduct before you cast aspersions.}}
			:::{{tq|but I do not appreciate being called a disruptive editor, ESPECIALLY not in a closing message meant to be neutrally worded}} ]
			:::{{tq|But, this feels like a biased closure occurred, and after all the recent heat at AN/I about neutrally worded things (and no canvassing), this might warrant a message an AN/I}} ]
			:<br>
			:::3. @]
			:::{{tq|First of all, I think it is probably improper of you to issue a warning as an administrator with regard to a dispute in which you yourself are involved, and furthermore to threaten to block the user with whom you disagree. That ought to be done by a third party.}}
			:::{{tq|I am so sorry that you are not interested. The thing is, though, that you must be. I think you reverted the above just because you wanted to evade those first two points more than anything. }}
			:::{{tq|I am also not too sure that you are not violating WP:SOAP — but perhaps that's debatable. You have furthermore done nothing to make me think better of referring the matter of your behaviour to another administrator.}} ]
			:<br>
			:::4. @]
			:::{{tq|It seems like you have some WP:BATTLEGROUND inclinations. }}
			:<br>
			:::5. @]
			:::{{tq|Per WP:TR; I feel as though you should WP:ASG and be careful not to misinterpret situations with which you aren't involved}}
			:<br>
			:::6. @]
			:::{{tq|I have enjoyed contributing here and do not wish to lose the privilege of doing so}} ]
			::::Jasper's edit summary in removing that from his page {{tq|you clearly didn’t read my edit notice which says to keep discussion on your talk page}}
			:I am unsure of where to go from here, or what to do about this. It is upsetting to me to see someone who has more privileges than an average wikipedian behave this way. Frankly, based on the reception I got to my post, I'm not even sure if I should be adding this to my post, but again: I cannot find any sort of documentation about where to put these findings otherwise. If there is a better venue/forum, please let me know.
			:<br>
			:Also, this is in no way comprehensive, and based ''solely'' on Jasper's edit summaries/diffs from his talk page. It appears as though this behavior goes back a long time, but I have not done a deep dive to see whether it is just his talk page/edit summaries, or other behavior, too.
			:Tagging those who have participated/are involved in the conversation so far, as I'm unsure if they will be notified of my comment: @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] ] (]) 22:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::'''Let. It. Go.''' Both of your behaviours have been suboptimal, but below the threshold for anyone to do anything about it in an official capacity. Very bluntly now: if you are truly unable to stop obsessing about this, then yes, Misplaced Pages is the wrong venue for you to participate in. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			The only things I'm going to say are:
			* Delectopierre is incorrect that I'm casting an aspersion because their included a boldened, underlined, ''and'' all caps "third". Even here they both bolden and all caps "potentially". This is as ] as it gets. Their overall tone is, as I said on Cullen's talk page, incredibly aggressive and condescending.
			* As stated on Delectopierre's talk page, I already voluntarily disengaged from interactions ''with them'' after Alex rightly called me out for the now-hatted back and forth.
			* However that does not enjoin me from replying to ''one'' other oppose out of the two or three others that were received in the intervening time frame and,
			* Therefore, Delectopierre's comment on my talk page and bringing this here is unnecessary escalation, particularly the former, and,
			* Consequently, I do not take back the comment I left Delectopierre on their talk page; as many would agree here, it takes two to disengage and that comment on my talk page was a gross slap in the face in view of my own attempt to disengage.
			* I remain committed to that disengagement but not to the effect of recusing myself from the consensus forming process on the talk page. I don't own the discussion but it doesn't mean I can't still participate and comment in it.
			* I also still am frustrated with Delectopierre for attempting to apply policies and guidelines they do not actually have a proficient understanding of ''in a way such that they imply or claim otherwise'', such as ] and ], or even ] as demonstrated right here. That's no longer my problem as long as they do not do something like that talk page comment again.
			* I apologize for the back and forth with Alex; however, I do not apologize to Delectopierre since they did not respect my own decision to not engage with them and continue to be condescending in this thread.--] ] 00:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I apologize for how my comment on your talk page came across. That was not my intention. I thought I was following the suggested protocol. ] (]) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Yikes, holy image overload Batman. And that bibliography? Listing every book ever published about Armenians in Cyprus or remotely connected is not a bibliography. And looking at the talk page, yes there is a serious ownership and tone issue with Neo ^ on there. A lot of that article needs culled, not moved elsewhere but culled. The majority isn't even remotely referenced. ] ] 13:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Just having a fresh look tonight, try cognates of '''heroic''', '''historic''' and '''unsurpassed''' in the thing.--] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)		:::I have more to say but for now I will accept that apology. Whether I'll give my own is going to have to wait. At this point I'll leave that part up to other editors.--] ] 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			I knew it would come here eventually, so here's a discussion I always thought stood out on their talk page: : A user came to their talk page with concerns about a bad revert, and to that they responded with "That's not my problem. You should look at the totality of your edit". "That's not my problem" is an incredibly uncivil way to respond to a genuine question, period. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{ping|EF5}} Kindly, and bluntly, your participation here is not helpful. The topic at hand is the conflict between myself and Delectopierre. --] ] 01:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Anyone can comment on an ANI report, and I'm giving what I think is an appropriate example of uncivil behavior. Someone uninvolved can remove my above comment if they think it's irrelevant to the discussion. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 01:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Given the inability or unwillingness of either party to voluntarily ], perhaps a two way interaction ban is necessary. ] (]) 02:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I offered to and did, except I thought they should know I accepted their apology. How does that suggest an IBAN is needed?--] ] 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Sorry, where did you do so prior to your comment on my talk page? I don't recall that happening, although I could be mistaken. That said, I am amenable to that as an option. How does that work if we are both working on an article/in a similar space? I'm thinking specifically of wildfires.
			:::::] (]) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hello everyone. I have been offended by the epressions the first user used against me. I am not that familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies, however I did not revert the changes, I merely changed back - some of them. The attempt is to include all relevant information. Maybe my tone was not liked by some people, but then again you should have seen the expressions used when mentioning me. ] (]) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::::I didn't explicitly say it. After I made no more replies to you or Alex and kept to it, and my comment thus said I "quietly" did so. Since I perceive a need to answer questions, I recommend you do not continue to pose them. I don't want to engage in this conversation any longer than you do, and this will be my very last reply to you for any reason.--] ] 03:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:"not that familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies"? Then you should watch your tone with other editors who '''are''' familiar with them, and again shame on you for being here 7 years and remaining "not that familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies".--] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::::::1. It's not an olive branch to make an edit with a antagonizing comment.
	::And, yes, they ''should'' take a look at the discussion page, and see who went in guns blazing-'''you'''-as seems to be your habit. A quick read of your edit summaries with other users makes that abundantly clear.--] (]) 13:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::::::2. 4ish hours after the , you followed me to a user talk page to in a conversation you were not at all involved in. That's neither an olive branch, nor voluntary disengagement. ] (]) 03:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Given this engagement, I think an enforced IBAN is necessary. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Sure, I'm amenable to that. How do I find out the answers to the question I asked ? ] (]) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::You got an answer. If you don't like it, there's nothing we can do about that. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Huh? I said I'm amenable to the IBAN and asked how an IBAN works when we may both be editing in the same topic area and/or on the same articles. I have yet to see any answers.
			:::::::::::I'm new so I'm trying to learn and ensure I follow the rules. I feel that the tone of your reply wasn't appropriate to someone trying to learn and it didn't assume good faith. ] (]) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	So I though I would add to this discussion a bit, let's try to keep calm no need to get angry Kintetsubuffalo. I've been aware of the of the shenanigans that have been going on in ] for some time. I thought since Neo put so much time and effort into expanding the page, that the information could be... hmmmmm how can I put this salvaged, then at a later date streamlined. As evident in the talk page I tried to come to some sort of compromises with Neo. Lets just say it would have been easier to get water from a rock. It's one thing for a user to be unaware of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and rules, making unintentional mistakes, I've done it plenty of times in the past. If you go to the ] it very evident that Neo has been well informed, especially about ] and ]. Every time I try to work these things out, Neo slowly goes back and reverts everything, like a child putting his hand into the cookie jar when he thinks no one is looking. I think I have been very patient with Neo, with all fairness, I truly believe Neo has good intentions. The fact of the matter is, that the page need some serious damage control, it definitely has problems with size and language used, at times seems a bit POV. Seric2 15:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::::::::::See ] for answers. Remember that we are all volunteers, so may not have time to answer questions where you can easily read the answer yourself. ] (]) 08:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::You asked two questions above and were not clear what "answer" you were wanting beyond what Jasper gave you. Phil filled in the link to IBAN, and you got your answer from Jasper regarding your other question. Next time, you may just want to state the question you need further answers to, rather than link to a previous discussion & expect us to figure it out. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Unattributed machine translations by Loukus999 ==
	"Shame on you", "watch your tone" and other expressions do show who has got a real problem with tone, and this is not me... I firmly believe that the basic information should remain when there are other main pages (e.g. education, church and monuments), that is why I am compromising there. However, the timeline or other sections - the information of which cannot be found anywhere else - should remain. And I do believe that I am not reverting things, I am merely editing.] (]) 06:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Loukus999 pblocked from articlespace. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|Loukus999}}
			Despite claiming to be a native English speaker on their user page, ] has been using a machine translator to create multiple articles for the past year and a bit. They have been warned multiple times by multiple editors on their talk page to attribute their machine translations, which are often of poor quality. They have also been warned not to recreate deleted articles, again with the aid of a machine translator. They have never communicated with other editors on any of the issues brought up, and I know this because , and it was .
			I ] prior that after 2,000+ edits to the mainspace, zero communication with other editors and repeatedly violating commonly understood policies was unacceptable, and I would take it to the noticeboard if these two things were to repeat, and so I now have done just that. Loukus999 recently created ], in a process which was so poorly done that ref tags have been left broken and there is a sentence proclaiming that "The full algorithm is available", followed by a citation to the bot / script that they presumably used.
	And another thing: you cannot imagine how much time I have devoted to accumulating and preserving this information. It is such a pity to lose this, just because the article has attracted unwanted attention... ] (]) 06:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::How are you "compromising"? Seric2 is exactly right about you, "Neo slowly goes back and reverts everything, like a child putting his hand into the cookie jar when he thinks no one is looking." You're loading the article with POV crap '''again''', when the above editors say the article needs culled.--] (]) 08:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Neo, it ], if ] is that the stuff you have added is inappropriate, out it goes. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 09:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			Loukus999 has not been using translators / bots / scripts responsibly on the English Misplaced Pages, and has refused to communicate after ample requests and warnings from other editors. <big>]]</big> 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: The hits with Neo just keep on coming, "I am not reverting things, I am merely editing" editing things back to the way they were? To be frank I've been here before. It wouldn't surprise me if a year, two or even three years down the line were back to square one with Neo making "additions" or "touch-ups" to the page. Now that we are on the topic, I was wondering if we could perhaps come to some sort of permanent solution. Now I'm not exactly filled with ideas, I was hoping for some kind of permanent solution, so we don't have to come back to the same problem year, after year, after year. Knowing Neo and his track record it's not hard to imagine this being the case. Seric2 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			:I happen to be very interested in ] and I've got to say that ] is a shockingly bad article. ] (]) 02:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well, it's a direct translation of one of the ceb.wiki machine generated articles. ] (]) 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Looks like the most recent creation before that is ], a translation of ] that is still unattributed. ] (]) 05:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:], it would help if you listed some articles you are concerned about so other editors don't have to go searching for them. You're likely to get a better response from editors who browse ANI if you spell everything out and provide links. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::To be clear, I am not highlighting an issue with one or a few of Loukus999's articles, I am highlighting an issue with ''all'' their articles. They didn't just start doing poorly done translations without attribution; that's all they've been doing.{{parabr}}I don't have to make a list either because Loukus999 already lists their "completed" and intended translation projects on their user page. Take for example, the first two articles they created on the list. ] was obviously machine translated from ], with the exact same content but accompanied by grammatical errors and awkward phrasing in English. Same thing with ], translated from ]. The problem is not only that Loukus999 doesn't attribute their translations, they also:
			::* Don't clean up their article afterwards, leaving it with grammatical mistakes, broken refs, and broken templates.
			::* Create translated articles without regard for past deletion discussions.
			::* Have not communicated with any editors despite several warnings over the past year.
			::So now there's about that are of poor quality, essentially machine translated without a second thought, and intended or otherwise, Loukus999 has shown that they do not care about site policy nor article quality by ignoring their talk page. <big>]]</big> 05:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::If you check ], every thread is a message, automatically or manually written, left by editors informing Loukus999 of their editing issues and problems with their articles. They've had a full year since the first message to respond or acknowledge anything, but instead they just continue their problematic editing as nobody had yet brought it up seriously. <big>]]</big> 05:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::They have no edits in user talk and just one in article talk. I think they need a block for non-communication. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Because Loukus999 has been consistently creating poor quality translations despite multiple warnings, I have indefintely blocked the editor from editing article space. They can create policy compliant, properly referenced draft translations and submit them to the Articles for Creation process. Communication with their fellow editors is required, as is producing high quality, policy compliant work. ] (]) 19:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Good block. When I see an editor translating from Cebuano, Spanish, Italian, and Russian (to name the examples listed above) but so obviously lacking in fluency in English, it makes me extremely skeptical that they are doing anything more than blind machine translation, not something we want to have here. —] (]) 00:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] and copyright unblocks ==
	First of all, I am not adding crap. What I did was selectively add back some of the information that was there in the first place. Only some of the information, the most important one.] (]) 09:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1= This spirited discussion has been open for three days. Feedback has been given by various editors to Beeblebrox about their concerns regarding his copyright unblocks. A sanction has been proposed and consensus is against it (see below closure). We may be at, or past, the point where more heat than light is generated. I humbly suggest that we all move on (with Beeblebrox taking on the feedback), and if new concerns of new actions arise, start a new discussion. {{nac}} '''] (] / ])''' 13:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	=== Armenians in Cyprus problem ===
			{{u|Beeblebrox}} does not appear to appreciate that blocks for good-faith copyright violations cannot be sorted out with an apology and some ], is not doing the basic due diligence required when dealing with these unblocks, and does not respond well to attempts by others to explain. Two recent examples:
			* ], blocked by {{u|DanCherek}} and follow-up by me on that talk page and at ]
			* ] and follow-up at ] by {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}
			In neither case was the blocking admin consulted. In the latter example, the blocking admin asked him to revert his unblock; Beeblebrox declined. In the former example, I had earlier responded to the unblock request. The blocked editor was still editing on simple-wiki, so their contributions could easily be checked to see if they understood copyright; I said so, and was rebuffed (with bonus {{tq|I have been an admin a ''lot'' longer than you}}, as though length of adminship tenure grants an exception from due diligence). In both cases, the editor was soon reblocked (by {{u|Izno}}). It is also worth noting that both of these unblock requests involved AI chatbots, which ought to be an especially red flag when we're dealing with editors blocked for copyright problems.
			This is extremely bad practice, and it needs to stop. -- ] (]) 07:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hello. I am Neo_^, for whom many have been heard, unfortunately.
			: I think Beeblebrox should make a habit of speaking to the blocking admin before unblocking. He seems to be alone in not doing this, and it is part of ] policy. ] (]) 07:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	I was told the bibliography section was very large, so we deleted the unpublished articles, the photographic albums and the (auto)biographies.
			::Yeah. Per the blocking policy ] and unblock guidelines ].
			::Beeblebrox has said that they {{tq|do not agree with or adhere to the idea that asking the blocking admin should be a ''de facto'' part of reviewing unblock requests}}, but until the consensus has changed, unblocking users without consulting the blocking admin would be violating policy.
			::And I personally believe that consulting the blocking admin before unblocking as a requirement is a good idea, so hopefully Beeblebrox will not repeat this again. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x]</span>→∞ (]) 09:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It is not a policy violation, policy states {{tq|administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter.}} Should avoid is not the same as shall not. The other is a guideline not a policy. ] (]) 01:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's not always necessary to consult the blocking admin, per the wording of the policy, but it should be done when the unblock might be controversial. Beeblebrox currently doesn't seem to have a good sense of which blocks might be controversial to lift without consultation. ] (] &#124; ]) 02:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Controversy is also often in the eye of the beholder. If one is looking for controversy, one can usually find it quite easily. Especially when policy leaves room for discretion (which it probably should in many cases). ]] 19:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I credit Beeblebrox with putting their money where their mouth is and attempting to fix their perceived issues with blocking and the process, but I do think the blocking admin should in most cases be consulted(with some exceptions like but not limited to straight username blocks or where the blocking admin invites unblocking). ] (]) 12:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I agree that Beeb's practice in this matter is both counter to policy and intuition. Why would an unblocking admin not want to ask the blocking admin something along the lines of, "Hey, is there anything I should know when considering unblocking this user?" Consulting simply means asking about the case to have more information; it does not mean that the unblocking admin must act in accordance with the blocking admin's wishes. - ] ] 13:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	Then, I was told that - because there are the articles on ], ] and ], I should add some of the information there, so as not to repeat what is on that articles, which is what I did, very selectively (only a small paragraph for each item).
			::Can we get that explicitly written into policy then? Because it being a consultation to see if information is missing makes perfect sense, but how the process has actually worked in practice for years (and in places such as ] requests) is not as an informational purpose, but instead to get "permission" from the blocking admin and, by their forbearance and mercy, will the action be allowed. But if the original admin disagrees, even without there being any extra information to back up and justify that stance, then it shall not be done. Because the original admin's actions are law and cannot be disputed and how dare you even try. ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I agree it should be written into policy. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::In my perspective, the ] is fairly clear that the blocking admin should be ''consulted'', but it doesn't state that administrators need permission from the blocking admin to unblock. ] (]) 03:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I'm very busy to day and have to go but the short answer is that making a user sit there and wait for however long it takes the blocking admin to show up has never seemd like a fair or useful requirtement in a case where there is extensive discussion between the blocked user and reviewing admins. ] ] 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	Then, some others started undoing my additions, without viewing them. How can someone help me?] (]) 10:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:{{u|Beeblebrox}}, if the blocking administrator is on a lengthy wikibreak or has been desysopped or has died or refuses to respond to pings, then move ahead with the unblock, noting one of those factors. That does not seem to be the case here. Please discuss unblocks with the blocking adminstrator, as this is the normal expectation among administrators with the obvious exception of you. Thank you. ] (]) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:To be clear, since everyone else appears to be understanding the problem here as "Beeb doesn't consult with the blocking admins", I included that information here as relevant context, but that isn't really the main issue at hand. The main issue at hand is that Beeblebrox believes himself to be competent to administrate copyright unblocks, and is evidently not. Consultation with the blocking admin might have helped in these cases, but given Beeb's responses to having these two unblocks questioned, I suspect it would have made little difference. -- ] (]) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	: For the record, I have blocked Neo ^ for 24 hours (as a standard 3RR block), after his recent edits that were four identical massive blanket reverts within one hour (not counting the several partial restorations he did earlier, which would probably also have counted as contentious reverts). ] ] 10:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			::This is the second time the first unblock has been discussed. Is there a reason you're bringing it back here? I'm not sure two unblocks are. reasomable measure to determine whether @] is {{tq|competent to administrate copyright unblocks}}. I don't think either that or not consulting blocking admin when there was '''already''' a discussion in progress with that admin is ANI worthy. ] ] 21:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Do you see anything in these two unblocks and their subsequent discussions that suggests that he ''is'' competent to administrate copyright unblocks? In neither discussion has he even acknowledged that he had made any kind of mistake. -- ] (]) 21:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I do. As well as in their long history as an admin. Editors can and will disagree, it's an opinion and neither of us is objectively correct. If you truly think he isn't competent, there are channels to bring it up. Bringing two unblocks, one a repeat, to ANI isn't going to accomplish anything. ] ] 01:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You know, I feel like I have tried to meet you halfway recently, after admittedly being a little aggressive when first returning to handling unblock requests, but I'm getting the distinct impression at this point that you just don't like me no matter what. Suggesting that a slight disagreement like this indicates incompetence is a pretty nasty thing to do. ] ] 23:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I don't have the faintest idea what {{tq|I feel like I have tried to meet you halfway recently}} is referring to. Halfway to ''what''? -- ] (]) 05:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Okay, how about his statement in the first unblock (the one where he ever so kindly tried to pull rank on asilvering after they disagreed with him), he stated that he would not, and did not intend to, perform due diligence ({{tq|nope, I did not do what you said would be sufficient for you personally. Neither I nor anyone else is bound by that}})? Or a little while later doubled down with {{tq|I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do}}? How about the way he dismissed the amount of time and effort it takes those of us working in copyright cleanup to mop up after these mistakes ({{tq|unblocks are cheap}}) and, perhaps this is the most important part of the entire situation, has stated that he believes copyright unblocks, and accepting them, are more a matter of good faith than anything else? ({{tq|we've become a bit too unwilling to just give second chances when a user, as this one did, apologizes and commits not to repeat the behaviors that led to the block}}{{efn|I agree with this in principle, by the way - or at least, I think we have one too many admins who are far too willing to block for even the most minor instances of disruption, and then drag their heels and attack admins who unblock, or mislead them into thinking they aren't allowed to unblock without consent, or who resort to personal attacks, use rollback, and levy level4im vandalism warnings against good-faith bystanders who try to help. And as long as those admins still have tools, we need admins like Beeblebrox who are willing to stand up to them an unblock obviously good faith newbies}}). {{pb}} Copyright issues aren't a simple matter of good faith by the way. Work one CCI, and you get to learn pretty much everything about an editor. You learn what what TV shows and music they like, where they're from, what little editing quirks they have, how they like to structure their articles - they're all unique. You know what's not unique? All them want to improve Misplaced Pages. Nobody's spending over a decade of their life ], ], or ] because they <em>want</em> to hurt the encyclopedia, or because they're simply negligent and need to be reminded to keep their fingers off the Crtl+V shortcut. Copyright unblocks are rarely given until several warnings have passed- so by the time we get to one, we've already repeatedly told a user "hey, if you copy-paste content into Misplaced Pages again you will be blocked". There's really not much room for misunderstanding there. And as much as I wish with all my heart and soul that we could give these people who plagiarize easy second chances, the severity of the issue and the difficulty in cleanup means that second chance has to be earnt. If we give somebody one last chance not to spam links, or mess with ENGVAR, or write promotional garbage, it'll be pretty easy for the community to tell if they go right back to their old habits, and any damage they do those issues are trivial to fix by a newbie rollbacker. Copyright issues? No- they can take weeks to months to years to be caught again{{efn|Copypatrol has limited functionality and NPP is not suited to catch anything but the most blatant copy-pastes from Earwig-readable online and well-linked sources}} - let alone clean up! We've got like like a dozen editors active in the copyright cleanup area? To really put things in perspective, I'm the newest and I got involved in 2023. We don't have the manpower to spare to do the due diligence Beeblebrox doesn't want to. The only reason the Jisshuu issue got cleaned up so fast is because asilvering was proactive, because {{yo|MrLinkinPark333}} and I spent a few hours digging through old books, and because I went to pester Beeblebrox on his talk page to mass-undo the most recent edits. (At some point, in his mind, this morphed into {{tq| I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself}}... which I guess is technically true? But he certainly did not show the initiative to do this himself). And instead of thanking asilvering for going to extra mile, he did the entire {{tq|meaning no offense, I have been an admin a <em>lot</em> longer than you}} thing. {{pb}} Of course, Beeblebrox could have done due dilligence, I suppose. But if that's the case, then that means that yesterday we saw a very long term admin look at a user whose average talkpage message looked something like {{Blockquote|text=Helloo🙄, The Page you are talking about is "GDP nominal" , The Page i created is "gdp per Capita nominal". For PPP it has to articles gdp PPP and gdp PPP per Capita. So?, You need to review that.}} and (in response to an earlier copyright warning, btw) {{Blockquote|text=East Africa City States Existed, You can't just delete an Article even without verifying..You are the one violating Misplaced Pages Terms }} and then believed, no questions asked, that they wrote and understood {{Blockquote|text=I apologize for the copyright violation in my contributions and understand the importance of adhering to Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. Moving forward, I will create original content, properly attribute sources, and ensure all materials comply with Misplaced Pages’s licensing requirements. I have reviewed the relevant guidelines to prevent future infractions. I kindly request reconsideration of my case and assure you of full compliance in my future contributions}} and {{Blockquote|If I happen to find valuable information in a copyrighted source, I will make sure to write it completely in my own words while still capturing the main idea and will also make sure to properly cite it to give credit where due without violating any policies}} which is far more concerning. Either way, he hasn't demonstrated that he is willing to properly administer copyright unblocks. And don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of the "you must wait until the blocking admin responds before unblocking" culture, and I think we should trust that all admins have the common sense to deal with the average spam-block or disruptive editing block without waiting 10 days and multiple pings just for the blocking admin to not oppose the unblock. And I think there's ample room in our current system to occasionally override a block, or IAR and quickly unblock. But copyright blocks are a different beast, and I'm disappointed that Beeblebrox's response to criticism has been what it was.
			{{notelist}}
			:::] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would count my re-block in the second case as more-or-less coincidental, myself. I do think that consulting the blocking admin per policy is a good idea, and echo Cullen's "well, if they appear to have been ], then you should feel free to 'be bold'". ] (]) 20:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yeah that they were reblocked for socking has nothing at all to do with what they were previously blocked for, so it's a bit odd to see it held up here as an example of my recklessness. Unblocking, no matter who is consulted before hand, is always a risk, but when the original issue was copyvios and the reblock is for socking that was detected by a checkuser, it's hard to see how one can say the unblocking admin should have known about a completely unrelated second issue that required functionary permissions to detect.
			::The other account was rightly reblocked because they lied during the unblock process, which we had no way of knowing until they were unblocked and immediately started acting the fool, at which point they were blocked again and I pitched in cleaning up the bit of a mess they left in their wake.
			::Whatever one may think about me not consulting with the blocking admin, these two unblocks don't prove anything besides the already known fact that sometimes people lie. That's just part of what admins deal with every day if they are doing actual admin work. ] ] 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And herein lies the problem: <em>they didn't lie</em>. They did not intend to deceive - they genuinely believed that they'd figured out the issue. Copyright blocks are nearly always done against good-faith users, and while it would be lovely to distill it down to some morally simple "they continue the behaviour => they were a liar all along", its not that simple and it never has been. ] (]) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::However one interprets it, they made it seem as though they understood the issue, at which point it is not unreasonable to see if that is really the case by unblocking, as it had already been discussed at length.
			::::That was my point when I originally wrote my most oft-cited essay, ] fifteen years ago, and it remains my point today. At a certain point the only way to actually know is to give them a chance. While we always hope they succeed, sometimes they have learned nothing, and we block them again. This is how the system is ''supposed to work''.
			::::Neither of these people created large problems after I unblocked them. I helped clean up after one while the other did not make a single edit in the interval between when I unblocked them and when they were found by a checkuser to be a sock. The harm here was extremely minimal and easily reverted.
			::::Unlike AN, ANI is for asking for ''consequences'', via administrative action because a user demonstrates a pattern of behavior that is harming the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that case has been made here and I don't believe I see a request for any specific sanction against me, so unless and until those things change I think I'm done here. ] ] 01:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] it's not up to you to decide whether the community thinks you're out of line. Nobody wants to sanction you, but when users turn a blind eye to the community's feedback that's usually what winds up happening. Please reconsider. ] ] 02:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] I’ll plug my essay on this matter: ]. Personally, I think it’s better to ask editors to rewrite the content they were blocked for rather than quizzing them about copyright policy. Beebs, I think you know that I welcome your efforts with improving our unblock system, and I think the first cited unblock was a reasonable Good faith unblock, even if it wasn’t perfect (I mean, me and Diannaa have unblocked editors on promises of no longer adding copyvios, and have had to reblock them— it happens). On the other hand, I think you were too hasty in reversing JLAN’s block, especially given what you were told after the first unblock. I think more conversation would’ve been better, and that while contacting JLAN for “permission” to unblock isn’t strictly required, you could have pinged him saying you were intending on unblocking. I’ll contrast this with your comment on ], which I think reflects a better approach to these sorts of blocks. I hope this is something that can be moved on from, and that you continue to look at unblocks that might slip through our systemic cracks, while also being diligent while looking into the background. ]] 02:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*No, look, don't unilaterally unblock people who copyvio. That's not okay and it ought to be obvious why. Never do it again.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{u|Beeblebrox}}, ''please'' do not try to brush off the valid concerns that have been expressed here about your strange stance that discussing unblock requests with the blocking administrator is unnecessary. As you well know, this is a collaborative project and that includes collaboration among administrators. Please commit to discussing unblocks with the blocking administrator at the minimum, except in extraordinary circumstances. Two heads are better than one. It is quite disconcerting to read the things that you are saying. ] (]) 02:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::In case you missed it, last month I reported at AN regarding finding what I believe were some serious issues in how unblock requests are being handled. In one of these threads I specifically mentioned asilvering as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking admin when reviewing a particular unblock request. I did not suggest this was malicious or deliberate or a sign of incompetence, just an error.
			*::I don't think it is a coincidence that now two relatively harmless unblocks are being held up as evidence that I am incompetent to handle unblock requests. ] ] 02:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I didn't miss it and I think it's why you're maybe having trouble hearing the sensible advice being offered to you by Cullen (and echoed by lots of other people like Izno, Moneytrees, 331dot, PhilKnight, deadbeef, and Elli in their own ways). Whether or not unblocks of copyright blocks are appropriate has seen a number of different viewpoints, but I'm seeing pretty unanimous support for the idea that you've been seeing exceptions that others don't see in when to consult. I specifically highlight Cullen's words because of the clear way he lays out when consulting may not make sense. I write this to you in the spirit of ]. Best, ] (]) 02:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I don't utterly reject the very idea that soliciting comment from the blocking admin can be helpful. I have done so on many past occasions. However, in very straighforward cases where the block reason is obvious and the blocked user admits their error and pledges not to repeat it, I'm at a loss as to what special insight we expect that the blocking admin will ''always'' have, but will not share with us unless specifically asked. I can say I am willing to have a more open mind about when to seek that opinion out and when not to, but I can't accept that it is a hard-and-fast rule, because it isn't. ] ] 03:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::As asilvering noted above, the purpose of this thread was not about whether you contacted the blocking admin but rather that you unblocked two users blocked for copyright with huge red flags in their unblock requests. The first had been editing on Simple Wiki during their EnWiki block, where they were continuing to including copyrighted material in their edits. The second was an editor clearly using an LLM in their unblock request, making it unclear to anyone whether they actually understood policy and would follow it. This isn't about AGF, ROPE, or pinging the blocking admin. It's about being inadequately reviewing the evidence provided and not understanding the seriousness of copyright issues.. ] (]) 03:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad that I didn't do what you think I should have, but was in no way actually obligated to do. I'm an admin on en.wp, the main thing I know about other projects is that they all make their own rules that may or may not be as strict as ours. And again, this situation was resolved with minimal harm nearly a month ago. ] ] 03:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Can you please stop trying to make assumptions about other editors' emotional states with regards to this discussion? You've accused me of a retaliatory filing, which makes no sense at all (if you did indeed specifically mention me {{tq|as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking admin}}, well, please let me know again, since it went completely over my head), and now you're saying that Significa liberdade is angry with you, when as far as I can tell she's simply trying to explain to you what the issue at hand here actually is. Whether other projects have different rules has nothing to do with whether or not an editor understands how to write without infringing copyright.
			*:::::::The situation was evidently ''not'' resolved, since you've done ''another'' "AGF" unblock on copyright without checking that the editor has actually understood the situation. For all I know there have been others as well, and I'm only aware of these two. It's one thing to shrug and make this kind of unblock when we're dealing with someone with a history of simple vandalism; they'll be easy to catch again if they go back to their old ways, and will be reblocked with minimal fuss. Copyvio is much less reliably caught and is a ''tremendous'' amount of work to clean up after. -- ] (]) 04:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::I'll gladly concede that that copyvios are a serious issue that should not be taken lightly, I think we all agree on that, but it wasn't actually a big deal with the post post-block edits of either of the users I unblocked. ] ] 05:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory. There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI? ] ] 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::What could I possibly be retaliating ''against''? The worst thing you've done to me is be condescending. (Well, and give me and others some extra work to do, I suppose, cleaning up after the first one.) We're at ANI because, as I said in my initial post, your approach to copyright {{tq|is extremely bad practice, and it needs to stop.}} I wasn't able to convince you to take copyright seriously and the problem has recurred. Right now it still looks likely to recur ''again'', so it is very much an ongoing issue, if a slow-moving one. Please, investigate copyright concerns thoroughly, or leave them for someone else. -- ] (]) 05:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::This isn't very consistent with the discussion on my talkpage where you objected to my username/promotion block for an editor that you chose to warn rather than block ; while I agree that I should have checked to see if that editor had been specifically warned (and then I unblocked as you asked), it seems to me that if you're expecting consultation over blocking someone you ''didn't'' block, you should expect to have to consult over an unblock. I realize you're trying to accomplish changes to the blocking process to be less, erm, blocky, but this seems a little hard to follow. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 03:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Unblocking someone is often, usually even, not at all equivalent to overturning the blocking admins decision. That would be the distinction as I see it. ] ] 03:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Your argument at the time was essentially that my decision to block overturned your decision ''not'' to block. While I personally do not insist on consultation regarding a change in one of my actions, it's generally a good gesture, and widely practiced. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 11:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{tq|I specifically mentioned asilvering as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking adminI don't think it is a coincidence}} Sorry, but as a participant in that thread, where exactly did this happen? Diffs, please. You've been around long enough ]. ] (]) 03:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Fair enough, I apparently misremembered. asilvering was very upset by what I said but was not one of the admins I specifically mentioned in that case. ] ] 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od}}I confess that I am totally bewildered about why a highly experienced adminstrator is behaving in what appears to me to be a haughty and tone deaf manner. ] (]) 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Beebs doesn't seem to be the only one behaving in a "haughty and tone deaf manner." Everyone on this thread frankly seemed to be going in for their pound of flesh. I thought this was supposed to be a "collaborative community," not a flock of vultures circling a fresh carcass. ] (]) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	This needs more eyes, I've unfortunately now gotten involved and can't be impartial any more from a blocking etc perspective. I've warned Neo ^ about edit warring and people are trying to explain things to him on the talk page but he isn't listening. The main crux of the issue is the user seems to think that Misplaced Pages should contain everything there is about Armenians in Cyprus from family emblems, to every organization and building related in any way, and a big issue is about photos of every building and seemingly every single member of the community. ] ] 16:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::Agreed. ]] 16:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:There is more than one way to get more eyes on this. Neo ^ was just blocked again. 72 hours this time. ]&#124;]&#124;] 23:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::+1. The level of the temperature here seems FAR higher than what should be merited by the complaint. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Those on the "other side" are insisting this is not personal or in any way a reaction to the previous AN threads I opened last month around issues I saw at ], but I can't recall a previous time that I saw several admins insist another admin was incompetent because of granting ''one'' unblock request that went slightly awry and was quickly and thoroughly dealt with, with assistance from the unblocking admin. If that is now sanctionable behavior, we'd lose a boatload of admins pretty quick.
			::::I can agree to consider copyvio-related unblock requests more carefully, but I utterly reject the premise that this one unblock demonstrates incompetence. ] ] 19:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|"It does bother me a little that somehow the users who seem the most upset with me are all women."}}
			:::::Um, excuse me? We're going to circle back round to the copyright thing, but what the ever living fuck is this comment? First of, as far as I know, you're wrong dk why you've imprinted on asilvering = fem, but they don't discloser their gender on or offwiki. Secondly, again, why is this relevant? Like, seriously. Not looking to turn this into Beeblebrox and WPO part 2: Electric Boogaloo, (if you say something about how that's just how you talk to your mates in a bar, I shall scream) but how is my gender relevant to this issue??? ] (]) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] I was mad and forgot to ping. scroll up. ] (]) 21:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I think you've got my intent there backwards.It bothers me because I don't like the idea that somehow my actions or attitude are specifically offensive to women. However, I'm unable to see why that would be. Just a little self-doubt is all. ] ] 21:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Pray tell what intent I've ascribed to your actions, because as far as <em>I</em> know, I just don't get why you feel the need to comment on my gender at all.
			::::::::@] I give up. ] (]) 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::@], I don't know what users you were talking about when you wrote that comment, but the only person I see in this thread that I can confidently describe as "upset" is GLL, and what upset her was your comment about upsetting women. I think we can probably chalk that one up to a mutual misunderstanding and let it drop. I'm glad you've agreed to consider copyvio-related unblock requests more carefully. -- ] (]) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::GLL, you have not explicitly said what you thought or imagined the intent was, but you ''did'' explicitly say {{tq|I was mad}}. So I don't think I'm way out in left field in saying that you seem to believe my intent to be something other than what I was trying to express, which I have already endeavored to explain. You may chose to believe my explanation or not as you see fit. ] ] 00:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::GLL, you're right to give up. Let it go. Beebs has got the message. He can count how many people are cross and he knows the maths at recall. He gets it. We won't see this again.
			::::::::::If you're looking for a clearer admission of error, you won't get one. People have pride.
			::::::::::If you're looking for an explanation of the women comment, assume that of all the possible meanings, Beebs meant the least creepy.
			::::::::::This is all over. Someone will close it soon.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 00:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::{{tq|somehow my actions or attitude are specifically offensive to women. However, I'm unable to see why that would be.}} Going out of one's way to make commentary along the lines of 'the people who are mad at me are all women' ({{tq|the users who seem the most upset with me are all women."}}) (especially when it ends up not being knowably true) seems pretty plainly sexist; it resonates with a long history of ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 00:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::You couldn't be more wrong. I was pondering what I had done so wrong that women in particular seemed to be upset with my actions, so that I could ''avoid doing so again'' but I wasn't able to parse out exactly what that might be.
			:::::::::That it is now having the opposite effect is a terrible and unintended result, and another reminder that sometimes I should just keep some of my thoughts in my head, lest they be grossly misunderstood if I write them down. ] ] 01:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::On one hand, I agree with the sentiment that it's rather asinine when one of the parties to a noticeboard dispute types half of their statements to their interlocutors here, and slaps the other half on a forum where some crazy guy will stalk your family if you mention its existence. However, this seems to me like a completely inverted reading of Beebs' post:
	== ] and ] (WP:BLPs) ==
			:::::::{{tq|It does bother me a little that somehow the users who seem the most upset with me are all women. I don't think I've acted like an overbearing mansplainer, and I certainly have not talked down to anyone due to their gender.}}
			::::::It seems clear to me that this post is bemoaning that his attempts to be intersectionally uplifting and Mind The Gap and etc have not succeeded, as opposed to being some sort of misog chud missive. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 00:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::<s>Man, I thought wikipedia admins were supposed to be civil to others jpxg. It appears I was mistaken. How disappointing. ] (]) 02:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
			::::::::Welcome to the fun house. And they wonder why people leave... ]] 02:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::two admins behaving in an uncivil manner towards their colleague. That is indeed disappointing. ] (]) 02:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I have no idea what you are referring to with this comment. Do you think I am obliged to stand by and say nothing when a person's words are misinterpreted? What are you talking about? Did you respond to the wrong post? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::<s>I definitely did respond to the right post. I would not regard referring to someone as a "chud" as being particularly civil. Disappointed that you don't see the issue with your own post.] (]) 04:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
			::::::::::I did not do that. Please see ]. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I will retract my statements having had a better chance to read what you said. Not a big fan of your snark though. ] (]) 05:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			: I would encourage Beeblebrox to read ] thread and maybe recalibrate his approach to copyright blocks. By the tenor of that thread and this thread, I think the prevailing attitude surrounding copyright unblocks is that the threshold for an unblock is becoming way higher (and I think it's a correct one in my view). No opinion as to disallowing Beebs to accept copyright-related unblocks, but I think he needs to be more careful with them. <span>♠] ]</span>♠ 01:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Can't both things be true: (a) that we need to protect the encyclopaedia (and the community), and copyvio is one of the more obvious cases; AND (b) that admins trying to do (a) sometimes make mistakes and spotting them is also part of the cluefulness the community expects in an admin? (It's not as if all the blocked editors are convicted murderers seeking to get out of jail, or as if all blocking admins have Papal infallibility. Or as if the unblock request system is designed to be a consensus discussion.) ] (]) 04:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	I got into a dispute with administrator John at the ] article over the appropriateness of using ]/People.com as a source for that article and other biographies of living persons. Before even reverting him, I took this matter to and the ]. As seen at that noticeboard, ] is that using ''People'' and newspaper sources such as the ] for biographies of living persons is acceptable. In fact, as pointed out in that discussion: At the ], ''People'' has been consistently deemed a reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons. Despite this, John has continued to insist that he is right, and, in my view, hinted at or inappropriately used his administrative influence during this dispute by stating things like "Not on my watch" and by continuing to remove the valid sources from the article (as seen and ) as though we should go by his word or no word at all. Despite being ], he issued on my talk page (a warning that indicates that he will block me); I'd already mentioned in the BLP:Noticeboard discussion that he is WP:INVOLVED and would likely block me anyway. There is also the he made on the Brad Pitt talk page advising me that it would "be very unwise to restore poorly sourced material to this article, especially while central discussion is still ongoing" and that "We are arguing aboutr ''People'' but there are also sources like the ''Sun'' and the ''New York Daily News'' which we cannot use." He stated this despite the fact that, again, WP:Consensus at the noticeboard is not in support of his view, except of course regarding sources such as '']''; it is a discussion that has obviously run its course. I told him, "That discussion is clearly not simply about ''People.'' The ''New York Daily News'' is an acceptable source as well, as explained there and no one is arguing to keep sources such as ''The Sun.'' As for the matter of ongoing discussion, if it is very unwise for me to restore the sourcing (which it isn't, per above), then it is very unwise of you to ] that material out, and to remove further such material, while the discussion is still open."
			{{abot}}
			===Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to accept copyright-related unblock requests ===
			{{atop
			| result = There is consensus against the proposed sanction. ] (]) 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			When dealing with copyright unblocks, Beeblebrox has expressed intent to test whether somebody really understands copyright, not by doing due diligence or consulting with those more experienced in copyright issues than he, but by unblocking the editor.{{efn|{{tq|"I have a long-held belief that unblocking is, in many cases, preferable to talking it out for several days or weeks, and that unblocks are cheap"}}}} This has so far resulted in the unblock of one editor where there was clear evidence that they had continued good-faith plagiarism on other English-language WMF projects,{{efn|Jisshu unblock, December 2024}} and one on the say-so of a chatbot.{{efn|Aguahrz unblock, January 2025}} He has cast aspersions and insulted both good-faith users who don't understand copyright{{efn|{{tq|1="they lied during the unblock process" }}}} and editors who bring up issues with his actions.{{efn|1={{tq|"Suggesting that a slight disagreement like this indicates incompetence is a pretty nasty thing to do"}}}}{{efn|1={{tq|"It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad"}}}}{{efn|1={{tq|"I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory"}}}} While acknowledging that these two situations ended up being fixed relatively quickly, that was only due to the proactive behaviour of third-parties. Under normal circumstances these would be chocked up as a learning experience, but his comments make it very clear that he has not learnt anything,{{efn|1={{tq|"it wasn't actually a big deal"}}}}{{efn|1={{tq|"these two unblocks don't prove anything besides the already known fact that sometimes people lie"}}}} that he is unwilling to listen to the concerns of other editors,{{efn|1={{tq|"There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI?"}}}} and will continue to act in the same manner going forward.{{efn|1={{tq|"I think that, realistically, the bar is somewhere around 'a grasp of the general idea that you can't just copy someone else's work and repost it like it was your own work'"}}}} Therefore, I am proposing that Beeblebrox is not allowed to unblock editors blocked for copyright infringement or plagiarism.
			{{notelist}}
			] (]) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' as proposer. I'm not a fan of holding editors responsible for the actions of others, but Beeblebrox's ideas about when copyright unblocks are needed (see the last footnote) are not great. This is the least invasive action I can think of that will limit disruption to Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''oppose''' is this the Spanish Inquisition? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*'''Premature'''. Give the man a chance to read the room and think. He will figure out that "I've upset Asilvering in the past, therefore Asilvering is wrong" is not a workable defence, and then he'll get the message. Beebs is on a crusade to improve our unblocking response, and that's a good thing; he's just got to recalibrate about ''who'' he unblocks. He will. Beebs isn't stupid, he's just bad at listening.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 09:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A wise man. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 10:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Hopefully you're right, S Marshall, and it wouldn't surprise me that much if everything you've said is true. The very impressive way he's making this all about whether to consult the unblocking or not isn't exactly giving me faith that he'll figure it out any time soon, but fingers crossed! {{pb}} And, I know I'm repeating myself here but for the avoidance of doubt I don't give a monkey's about consulting the blocking administrator in every case, I agree with most of the crusade and did a decent amount of legwork which enabled me to bring up examples in the previous AN thread of unblocks gone bad . @], as somebody who is also one-track minded to a fault, please listen to S Marshall, read the words I am typing, and at least try understand where I and the others in this thread are coming from, because it's not what you think. ] (]) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I fully understand that the original intent of this thread was not "he didn't consult with the blocking admin" but rather "he sucks at reviewing copyvio-related unblock requests". I don't think it was me alone who changed the focus to consulting the blocking admin, the other respondents, mostly admins themselves, did that.
			:::Putting that issue aside, and I mean in this in the nicest possible way, if you're going to try and get somebody sanctioned for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, you need to come locked and loaded with a ''lot'' more than what has been presented here, which realistically, is one single unblock. If you're going to call someone incompetent at anything, you should probably anticipate a strong response to such a personal and insulting accusation.
			:::I'm open to criticism, but this sanction attempt was so thin on evidence that it's practically invisible.
			:::Don't get me wrong, I think you're ok in general but this proposed sanction was a very premature gross overreaction. ] ] 02:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::On consulting the blocking admin, I'm 100% with you. I've been the victim of a bad block (by a sitting arb, in fact). That's how I know that the character who blocked me shouldn't ever become the gatekeeper for my unblock. I'm passionate about that on principle.
			::::I think it's a great pity that some people have made this into a thread about consulting the blocker. I don't blame you for focusing on that side of it because on that side of it you're in the right, at a fundamental, ethical level.
			::::But on unblocking copyright violating editors, your position is not exactly akin to Gibraltar.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 11:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Support''', mostly per Beeblebrox's own comment above: {{tq|Unlike AN, ANI is for asking for consequences, via administrative action because a user demonstrates a pattern of behavior that is harming the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that case has been made here and I don't believe I see a request for any specific sanction against me, so unless and until those things change I think I'm done here.}} Since that comment, he's continued to not get it, and to impugn the motives of basically everyone who disagrees with him. ] ] 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' premature and unnecessary. Two <s>blocks</s>unblocks, one of which was hashed out a month ago, does not prove a large issue that merits consequences. ] ] 13:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' as too soon. Let's see how things turn out... - ] ]
			*'''Oppose'''. Several people, including myself, observed in 2024 that our requests for unblock process had become schlerotic and was suffering from undue months-long delays, largely as the result of too few administrators working CAT:RFU. More recently the situation has improved substantially, with Beeblebrox being responsible for much of the improvement, both by pointing attention to the problem (albeit not always in the same words I would use), and by himself acting on many of the pending requests. I do agree that consulting the initial blocking admin is typically appropriate and can lead to important information (for example, in one recent case I reviewed, I was puzzled at a block that appeared to be an overreaction to a single dubious edit, but I had forgotten to check the user's edit-filter log, which made the reason crystal-clear). I can also agree, based on several people's observations above, that copyvio blocks can call for a little extra caution, and that these days we now need to be scrutinizing unblock requests for insincere chatbot-generated garbage. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of improved admin responsiveness to unblock requests should continue and Beeblebrox should continue to be part of the solution. I also commend the other admins who have pitched in recently in this area; to state the obvious, the more people share the workload, the less will be the burden, stress, or risk of burnout on any one admin, and the more fair will be our unblock requests process both to the blocked users and to everyone else. ] (]) 14:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' With apologies that I didn't fully read all of the background that led to this particular thread. I agree that Cat:RFU has too few admins working at and I say this is someone who is probably never contributed, but as someone who does at least my fair share investigating copyright issues, I do know a little about the situation. While I think it's fair to assert that most copyright violations are good faith errors, it doesn't follow that most blocks for copyright violations are good faith errors. (I'm not suggesting that anyone specifically said that, but it's a possible take away.) Speaking only for my personal approach, I review a lot of potential copyright violations. I reverted and warned many violators. I don't believe I've ever personally blocked anyone for a single violation. The rare cases I block someone for copyright violations is when it has been repeated even after warnings. In my opinion if you've been warned and still do it, it is no longer good faith. That might not be malicious it might be incompetence, but it then deserves a block. I agree it is best practice to talk to the blocking administrator, and while I personally try to make sure to stay active for a period of time after blocking someone, that's not always possible, so I'm not in favor of requiring interaction with the blocking administrator. ]] 17:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - With Misplaced Pages likely to be playing defense in the coming few years, I'm sympathetic to being extra cautious when it comes to potential legal vulnerabilities, and agree with some of the procedural criticisms in the thread above, but this seems like an unnecessary escalation amid active conversation. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 17:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' his responses don't inspire confidence. He doesn't seem to care that other admins find some of his behavior in unblock requests subpar. I would expect a more robust response and an acknowledgement to do better. I often hear that admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and I don't believe his responses here meet that standard.]] 17:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Premature''' per S Marshall (both in the !voting and ). ] (]) 18:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Aguahrz was re-blocked for matters unrelated to copyright. One example does not suggest a wider problem requiring a bizarre type of topic ban. ] (]) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' regardless of the intent when openeing this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that the bulk of commenters are in fact upset that I often do not consult with thr blocking admin, I don't see a consensus that these two unblocks represent a pattern of causing real harm to the encyclopedia, to the extent that a sanction is required. I have already said I will try to keep a more open mind about it going forward, you can beleive that or not, but a topic ban is obviously grossly premature. ] ] 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|While acknowledging that these two situations ended up being fixed relatively quickly, that was only due to the proactive behaviour of third-parties}} is exceptionally bullshitty.
			*:The admin who reblocked in the second case not "fixing my error," they discovered using checkuser that the user was a sock and blocked them. It had nothing whatsoever to do with copyvios or my decision to unblock them.
			*:And in the first case, as I've mentioned, as soon as I became aware of their activities I went in and helped clean it up, as GLL is perfectly aware since they were the one who ]. ] ] 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I've just now noticed that the proposal is "''Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to '''accept''' copyright-related unblock requests''" (emphasis added). So, I'm competent to deny such requests, just not to accept? How does that make sense? ] ] 03:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' premature, willing to accept Beeblebrox's course correction. Once upon a time, different things were thought of as cowboy adminning than they are today, and community norms change. I know that from experience. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - Unnecessary. ] (]) 23:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' -- I don't think the argument that Beebs is somehow not competent to handle copyright unblocks has merit. As has been pointed out, policy does not strictly require consultation -- it's a "should" do, and there are valid reasons (both the "hit by bus" argument and as Brad points out "our unblocking process sucks") why an administrator may choose not to consult. There's a reason, for instance, that CTOPS/AE unblocks explicitly have a different unblocking process -- if the community wanted a no-exceptions blanket policy, they would have implemented one. I'm honestly surprised by the level of hostility he's getting here. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' This feels like it's about far more than what's being presented here. As others have noted there's a significant level of hostility here that doesn't feel warranted. In any case, restrictions of the kind proposed are premature at best. ]] 14:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' as premature. The threaded discussion from prior to this proposal should keep going.—] 14:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' I am not seeing a pattern of multiple bad unblocks that would justify this sanction. -- ] (]) 14:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' absurdly massive overreaction, if not a solution looking for a problem. ] (]) 16:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles ==
	So, yes, assistance is needed from the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on this matter. ] (]) 12:58, 15 September 2013 (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.
	:I haven't read through that enough yet, but I don't see this consensus on using the "Daily News" for this. ] (]) 13:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			* was deleted for ]
	::I'm willing to agree they might be acceptable. Privilege not being license, however, they are not sources I would call "high quality". I would personally prefer not to use them. John is a very experienced editor and I would personally defer to his judgment on this matter. That being said, this is a content matter and has no place here.--] (]) 13:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::: I'll disagree in some aspects Wehwalt: Flyer22 has begun to once again - something I have gently tried to talk him out of, only to be attacked myself. His AGF-meter seems to be very broken <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 13:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::: {{ec}}No, an admin threatening a block contrary to consensus at BLP/N does have a place here. Claiming WP:BLP trumps WP:V shows a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages standards. <small>]</small> 13:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Knowing nothing about any of these publications, I cannot offer an opinion about whether they are reliable sources. That being said, WP:V really is our primary content policy, aside from the limited situations in which we need to ]. BLP absolutely may not be used as a trump card to censor stuff we don't like. If you get blocked, an unblock and immediate RFCU on John will follow. ] (]) 13:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			* on ] and ] grounds
	:::::Dougweller, the discussion is also about non-] sources in general. And I specifically mentioned the ''New York Daily News''; like ''People,'' use of it for biographies of living persons does not violate ].
			* on ] and ]
	:::::Wehwalt, I am also a very experienced Misplaced Pages editor, and so are most or all of the other editors in that discussion. I, and some of them, deal with WP:BLP topics often. That noticeboard is the WP:BLP noticeboard, after all. And like I mentioned there, ''People'' has generally been considered a reliable source for biographical content on Misplaced Pages (especially for sourcing text pertaining to an interview that person did with the publication). It is used for many or most of the biographies of living persons regarding celebrities, has consistently passed as a WP:Reliable source in discussions about its reliability/validity, and during the ] and ] processes. The WP:Featured article process in particular is an extremely rigorous process that makes sure that sources are reliable/valid. I brought this matter to this noticeboard because John is continuing to remove the sources despite WP:Consensus, and because he issued that warning on my talk page. Should I have waited until he blocked me? I think not.
			*They've been warned about ] and .
	:::::As for EatsShootsAndLeaves (also known as ]), he considers my calling out John's antics (being on a power trip and power-hungry) to be a ]. I do not. Nor do I consider calling out the fact that Bwilkins is not a neutral commentator on anything regarding me to be a personal attack. Referring to me by male pronouns when he is well aware that I am female, unless he has reasons to doubt it, is more of the disrespect he has shown me in the past. And his "once again" comment should not be taken to mean that I normally violate the WP:Personal attacks policy; I do not.
			*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )
	:::::NE Ent and Nyttend, thank you. ] (]) 14:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I would consider these sources to be less than optimal as far as reliability. ''People'' in particular often pays well (and sometimes is paid by promoters) to help others be famous or infamous. As sources they are hardly worth the paper they are printed on. However, for the particular non controversial aspects of the article in question that these sources are used to reference, they may be adequate enough...though surely not scholarly. Any article that came to FAC with ''People'' as a reference would get a fail from me, just to be clear.--] 14:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]
	The way some of those references from People magazine have been thrown into the article, presumably with a catapult needs fixed, the same biography on the People website is used by at least two separate references which makes it difficult to ascertain where some of the issues may lie, but that's not really much more than an aside here.
	I've looked at some of the references and compared what the publication (in this case People magazine) said with what it's being used to reference and I'm afraid the sources do appear to be misused. {{xt|His portrayal of the character has been described as a career-making performance...}} actually comes from The Los Angeles Times only ambiguously referenced by People magazine - it could be better referenced by quoting the LA Times directly (as we should be doing as we don't know the entire context of the quote when used like this). People is again used to reference another claim {{xt|While struggling to establish himself in ], Pitt took lessons from acting coach ]}} but the source says {{xt|"This girl – I'd never met her before – was in an acting class taught by a man named Roy London," a famous acting coach, he said, according to excerpts in this week's Newsweek. "I went and checked it out, and it really set me on the path to where I am now."}} it's not clear there that Pitt was actually tutored by Roy London, just that he checked out an acting class taught by him. I can't see what value adding things like {{xt|Speaking of his scenes with McCall, Pitt later said, "It was kind of wild, because I'd never even met her before."}} adds to the article. The reference for {{xt|On November 22, 2001, Pitt made a guest appearance in the ] of the television series '']'', playing a man with a grudge against ], played by ], to whom Pitt was married at the time}} includes no detail of the date, or episode title (that I could find). . The reference for {{xt|The film earned $364&nbsp;million outside the U.S. and $133&nbsp;million domestically.}} is completely wrong and inappropriate and includes no mention of the international gross takes anywhere and only mentions the US take after the first week, not total box office figures.
	I also see a lot of People references being jammed in alongside unambiguously reliable references and adding nothing of value to the standard of referencing.
	The feeling I get from these references (and I'm perhaps maligning People) is that it's a celebrity gossip magazine with a few useful bits of information surfacing occasionally, but I don't really see anything reading through the number of references I've done today that makes me entirely comfortable using them for referencing an encyclopedic article. I can only conclude John is correct in his actions and I'd support the removal of those references - they largely fail ] too. ] (]) 14:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	*It depends on what the material is. These two sources are less than perfectly reliable for contentious material. The content of ''People'' sometimes does verge on Tabloid; the ''Daily News'' is in recent years better than it used to be, but it still needs to be used cautiously. They can, however, be used for routine uncontested material without any problem, and I would also use the ''News'' for most articles related to NYC. Some of the uses here seem perfectly unexceptional. Others, as mentioned just above, may not be. For some of the ones mentioned above the problem is not that they cite ''People'' but that they do it for material which is not in the source, which would be wrong no matter what source it is. For actors and other creative people, questions of influence tend to be uncertain, and the subject may say different things at different times. Further, what the person says about something like that must be cited as what the person ''says'', not as to what the influences ''are'', which needs a third party source. In short, I think John had good intentions in doing this, but he did it unselectively, and should have gone citation by citation. Large scale unselective actions at WP are usually not a good idea. ''']''' (]) 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			Most recently there's ], which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted.
	:Nick, this thread is about John's behavior and the perception that he is misusing his admin status to threaten others with retribution, not about whether the biography about Brad Pitt is written perfectly well (it is not) or about whether the Pitt biography text perfectly reflects the cited sources (it does not.) Anybody who is interested is welcome to get into the biography and fix the problems Nick identified, but let's not get drawn off track. ] (]) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::OK, if we really must focus on individual users rather than the issue of content. There's nothing seriously wrong with John's behaviour, he's as entitled to warn users for improper behaviour as the next editor although if he had gone and removed individual citations one by one, we would have had a better article at the end of it. I will also state Flyer22's behaviour is problematic as they reintroduced a large number of references that simply should not be used, but that's what happens when you get into this constant cycle of someone's right and someone's wrong. John was wrong to remove all the People references in one go (despite the fact they probably should all be gone anyway) and Flyer22 was wrong to add them back. ] (]) 16:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I obviously had no idea that there were WP:Verifiability problems with the way that some of the sources are used. But per my and others' comments at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and my comments in this discussion, I do not believe that I was acting disruptively or was wrong to add the sources back. ] (]) 16:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::I agree that there was no issue with disruption. I can't say you were wrong to add the sources back, given the nature of the argument. ] (]) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks. ] (]) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	*The issue of an administrator warning another editor is often sticky. In my view, an admin has a right to use a templated warning just as any editor would do. It's true that some editors are more intimidated by receiving a warning from an admin than from a non-admin, but that shouldn't prevent an admin from issuing the warning. If an admin clearly gives a warning in their capacity as an admin, e.g., if you do this, I will block you, that's a different story. I would be concerned if John ''blocked'' Flyer, but I don't see why John can't be as strong as any editor in expressing his views about policy.--] (]) 15:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Nick, thanks for pointing out the matters that need fixing. I agree with DGG that those matters are not excuses/valid for removing the generally acceptable sources that John removed (again, I'm not talking about sources such as ''The Sun''). Bbb23, I have no problem with administrators issuing a warning; that is part of an administrator's job. The significant majority of editors here are not administrators, and so the significant majority of editors here who get warnings from administrators are not administrators. I do have a problem with an administrator removing and continuing to remove sources against valid WP:Consensus. This is the WP:BLP noticeboard we are talking about; it involves editors like Binksternet, who are extremely familiar with what sources are acceptable for biographical content concerning living people. It's not a flimsy or ] consensus that was formed on the article talk page. I have a problem with an administrator issuing a warning that someone is violating a policy, when that warning is based only on his or her opinion, and when the indication is clearly "I will block you, if you further violate ." He gave me a "This is your only warning" template, despite the consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and as though I was being some disruptive newbie who doesn't understand WP:BLP policy. I don't see how it can be argued that he did not know very well what implication issuing me that warning would send. I did not feel intimidated, in the sense of being scared to oppose him. I felt threatened, in the sense that he would unjustly block me. Therefore, I felt that I had to beat him to the punch by starting this thread on him. ] (]) 16:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I'm doing my best not to look at the Pitt article or the underlying discussions. There's so much crap in actor articles, whether it's sourced to People, some other fan magazine, or even a major news outlet. If I have to read one more dating history of some good-looking actor ... Two issues you raise. First, whether John is defying consensus. To know that, I'd have to read the discussions, but, generally, what happens when any editor defies consensus is an edit war ensues. That generally gets the defier blocked. Has that happened? I saw a whole bunch of recent consecutive (interrupted only by a bot) reverts at Pitt by John and one by you. I didn't see a war. Second, not whether an administrator is entitled to warn another editor but whether the warning is justifiable. No editor, admin or otherwise, should issue unjustified warnings, and if there is a ''pattern'' of doing so, they should be sanctioned. On a more isolated basis, they should probably just be advised/warned not to do it. I'd kind of like to hear from John in this discussion. It looks like he hasn't been on-wiki for several hours.--] (]) 16:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::There was a small discussion at ] about People magazine, it's quite clear that those who commented supported the use of People Magazine/People.com as a reliable source, but we've also got comments here which suggest that's not universally accepted across the project. I suspect there's going to have to be a full scale RFC about reliable sources to get to the bottom of what the project as a whole will accept as a reliable source and whether it's possible to consider some less reliable sources for the referencing of less contentious content (name, filmography, DOB etc etc) but there's absolutely no consistency and quite clearly with one group of editors, John would be enforcing consensus and with another group of editors he's ignoring consensus. ] (]) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. ] but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to ] someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a ] article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. ] 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Bbb23, there have not been a lot of reverts at the Pitt article with regard to me and John (I've reverted him twice; he's reverted me once). And he obviously has not been blocked. But, LOL, regarding reading the article; you're like me in that regard -- watches it, but mostly hasn't read it. Nick's points about the verifiability of that article, however, give me the urge to read the article in its entirety and correct the verifiability aspects that need correcting.
			: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)
	:::::Nick, I pointed out that, in that discussion, it was noted that the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has consistently deemed ''People'' a reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons. I also noted before that point that it's passed as a reliable source at the WP:BLP noticeboard various times. It's used for a lot of or the majority of articles about living celebrities, and routinely passes as a WP:Reliable source in good and featured article nominations. But I feel that your suggestion about such a ] is a good idea. ] (]) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (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)
			:Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
			:*1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "]," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
			:*2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
			:*3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
			:*4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
			:*5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
			:*6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
			:*7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
			:Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "]". ] (]) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.}}
			::I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between ] and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
			::{{tq|I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.}}
			::Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails ] doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass ] and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
			::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}}
			::I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have ] issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass ] before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. ] 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			* The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that ''is'' in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. ] 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	A couple things stand out to me here: I'd encourage Flyer not to use rhetoric like "power-hungry, abusive administrator" to describe John. That's probably not going to be very helpful here. And as far as I can see, John hasn't used his admin tools in this dispute. I'd strongly encourage him not to do so, since the last thing we want here is a repeat of the Manning debacle. Also, John's templating of Flyer ]. ] (]) 18:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			* Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the ] policy. I propose and '''support''' a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating ], they gain that necessary understanding/competence. ] (]) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Two comments, first maybe we should step back and take a deep breath until John chips in? Secondly, ] when, in good faith, the templator believes it's appropriate. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 18:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			* '''SUPPORT''' ban from article creation. ] ] 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::If you're going to give an "only warning" to an editor, especially one that's established, you better darn well be sure it'll be viewed as uncontroversial by uninvolved parties. That goes double for admins as most of us probably feel the next step will be a block. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 18:30, 15 September 2013 (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)
	:::Yeah, you really shouldn't throw a level 4 template on someone's talk page ''while you're in a good-faith dispute with them''. Particularly if you're an admin and they're not. ] (]) 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::100% agreed on that. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)		*'''Support''' article creation ban. ] (]) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::No, users should be templated in accordance with the explanation at ]. Normally a uw-biog warning would be given to ensure an editor is aware of BLP policies -- given that Flyer22 had already initiated a BLP/N, clearly {{gender|Flyer22}} was already aware of BLP and was already discussing the editors; therefore the logical inference is the warning was intended to intimidate / threaten the user.<small>]</small> 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			:*'''Support''' Ban.
	No comment on the specifics of the content and whether the sources support it. Regarding the ANI-relevant issue, John's conduct, it is entirely inappropriate to threaten someone who has gone through the proper channels and followed consensus, as Flyer22 did, with a block. John is entitled to his views on ''People'' and the NY ''Daily News'', but his views do not trump the general views of the community, which have long held that those sources, while inevitably less than ideal, are nonetheless generally reliable. Flyer22 did the right thing in taking the matter to a noticeboard and seeking consensus there, her restoration of content based on the response she received at the noticeboard was fully within policy (no 3RR problems and consensus respected) and she deserved better than to receive a templated warning (a level-4im, no less) in response. That was provocative, insulting, and uncalled for. John appears to have disrespected WP:CONSENSUS, misapplied WP:BLP, and displayed WP:OWN issues. One hopes this could be resolved with a gentle trout whack and an assurance that similar disputes will be handled differently in future. ] (]) 18:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Aren't "gentle" and "whack" mutually exclusive? :-) --] (]) 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)		:] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Only in the real world, Bbb. Misplaced Pages occupies a parallel universe with its own laws of physics. ] (]) 18:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)		:I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with ]. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored.
	:::And there violating WP:Consensus, removing everything again and citing use of ''The Sun'' as his excuse. Not only does he not respect WP:Consensus, but he has a severe case of ]. One more time: In this case, no one is supporting the use of ''The Sun'' at the WP:BLP noticeboard or in this discussion. He could have easily removed that without removing the other sources. ] (]) 21:51, 15 September 2013 (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)
	*It seems a handful of editors think ''People'' is a good source for BLPs; I think the onus is on them to demonstrate how it meets our standards. The ''New York Daily News'' and ''The Sun'' are unambiguously tabloids and as such can never be used on a BLP. By blindly edit-warring to restore these non-compliant sources as well as the People ones that they think they have consensus to use, I think Flyer is being either intentionally ] or ]. Whether this rises to the level of being block worthy I will let others judge. The best course would obviously be for them to find better sources. I don't appreciate the insults this user has thrown at me but again I am not sure this requires a block at the moment. I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do exactly the same the next time. It would be great if others would join me in removing gossip sites and tabloids from articles on living people, as our policy stipulates. --] (]) 21:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! ] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*John, I think Flyer is understandably frustrated with your behavior. Your latest removal of sources says that the ''Sun'' is a tabloid, but many of the sources you removed relate to ''People''. I thought that on the talk page you had already agreed that the issue of People was still being debated. Why then are you removing the sources? At the same time, your demand that this cannot be resolved by what you label a local consensus, if carried to its logical extreme, would mean that we would have to remove all these sources from tons of articles. I'm not going to express an opinion on the consensus because I haven't read all the discussions, but this is not a case where damaging material about the subject is being added to the article and you are protecting it. You are removing the sources themselves as if they're poison, not assertions about the subject.--] (]) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (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 need to correct something I said above. John ''is'' removing material as well as sources. It depends on whether the material is sourced only to ''People'' or if it is sourced to some other source ''and'' to ''People''. My mistake.--] (]) 23:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::To John: It is not "a handful of editors," as has been consistently explained to you. Get it through your head that '''''People'' has consistently passed as a WP:Reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons, both at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and that it routinely passes as a WP:Reliable source in good and featured article nominations.''' That does not equate to "a handful of editors." That equates to precedent/standard practice on Misplaced Pages. You refuse to listen to anyone else's opinion but your own. Not just here, but elsewhere as well (I've noticed, and as also recently by a different editor on my talk page). You act as though it is your way or the highway. And I don't see how anyone has to wonder why I have cited you as being on a power trip, or referred to you by the aforementioned descriptions (pointed out by Mark) above. The one showing disruption and WP:Competence issues is you, which is well documented in the aforementioned WP:BLP noticeboard discussion and in this discussion. You don't know how to admit when you are wrong, apparently, not even about disclaimers, and you don't know how to follow WP:Consensus...or rather refuse to follow it when it gets in the way of something you disagree with. The only reason I can think that you feel that it is okay to act in the disruptive way you have acted in this case is because you are an administrator. But your actions are wrong. '''Just because a source mostly or only focuses on celebrities does not make that source unreliable, any more than using ] as a source for sports material makes that source unreliable.''' You have convinced me that you are one of the worst editors/administrators I have ever had the non-pleasure of interacting with. ] (]) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Flyer22, as an experienced editor (my regrets, re my earlier comment) perhaps you could refer me to a couple of featured article nominations where the question of ''People'' magazine was discussed and upheld? To my knowledge, I have never used or seen either ''People'' or the NY ''Daily News'' in a featured article or run across it at a nomination, and would certainly flag it and request an explanation if I did see one. I'm reasonably familiar, in an ''ad hoc'' sort of way, with FAC, but perhaps your experience is superior.--] (]) 22:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
	::::Not at the top of my head, I can't (think of a case where ''People'' was specifically pointed out, meaning because it's ''People,'' during a good or featured article process and then upheld; what I do know is that I've seen that more than several times in the several years I've been at this site, since 2007). It is easy enough, however, to look at some of our WP:Featured article biographies of living people and see if they passed using ''People'' or sources such as ''New York Daily News.'' I'm still not sure how ''New York Daily News'' can be called a tabloid, simply because, as its lead currently states, "The first U.S. daily printed in ] form." As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not equal "tabloid." Many valid newspapers use that format. I'm not sure how you've not come across a Misplaced Pages featured biography of a living person that uses ''People'' as a source, but that Brad Pitt article, which , is nowhere close to a limited case. Like others besides me have stated on this topic, ''People'' is routinely used in many of our articles on living people, especially celebrities. But it hardly matters anyway if John gets a special license to violate WP:Consensus (a policy) during a dispute that is not a WP:Ignore all rules matter (as far as I can see). ] (]) 23:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			*'''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)
	:::::These versions of articles were passed into FA status with using People as a source: . The onus is on ''John'' to get consensus that People does not meet our sourcing standards. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 23:25, 15 September 2013 (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)
	::::::And the ''New York Daily News''? Are you also standing up for that being BLP-compliant? Because it isn't. And nobody has argued that it is. Yet you restored it as a reference. Why was that? --] (]) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::No one has argued that it is? Yeah, you clearly have a serious case of WP:I didn't hear that. And nice personal attack you made on NeilN below (...not). ] (]) 06:03, 16 September 2013 (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)
	:::::::The ''New York Daily News'' has been brought up once at ]: ]. At ] it has a rather more mixed set of reviews, but the main arguments against it appear to come from a now site-banned editor... - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 09:10, 16 September 2013 (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)
	Trying to get the discussion back on track here, the question is whether People inherently qualifies as a source which can be used, apparently, in all cases. The nature of the discussion above regarding that point seems to be "no" - it is by nature pretty much a populist source, and they can, at times, be less than optimal. This is not to say that it can't be used,particularly if the content being sourced from it is more or less noncontroversial, but that potentially contentious material which can be sourced exclusively from it might well be problematic. Not all "acceptable" sources are reliable enough to meet RS standards in all cases. Having said all that, we then return to the apparent subject of this discussion, whether John was acting acceptably to remove the material and source from the article. Not knowing all the details about the specific material sourced from People, or whether better sources for the same content exists, that one is hard to answer, but I think in most cases we would err on the side of caution in general there, particularly if BLP concerns are involved. So, removing potentially contentious material sourced from People would be, I think according to most of us, reasonable. The material should then be discussed on the talk page, and if John didn't do that, he probably should have, depending on whether the content had serious BLP problems of not. ''If the material was contentious,'' and I don't know enough here to say anything about that in this particular instance. But, on the whole, while I can see that maybe John's actions might not have necessarily been the best of all possible actions he could have taken, and the apparent threat was really less than optimal, I'm not sure that anything more than a few lashings with a wet noodle, or trout, is called for here, so long as the actions don't repeat themselves. ] (]) 23:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I think you must be reading a different discussion than I am. Perhaps if John were to show any kind of understanding of why this incident report was opened, he could avoid the trouting? ] (]) 23:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
	:If the material was contentious, I would expect a different tone on ] and here. Instead, we have John removing cites to "The same year, Pitt co-starred in six episodes of the short-lived Fox drama ''Glory Days''" and "...and traveled to ] in November 2005 with Angelina Jolie to see the impact of the ]." --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			== Tendentious name changing by MŞ46 ==
	I've just full protected the article. I think it was justified to keep the parties in the dispute from edit warring further and force discussion. I commented on some comments from couple users above, but I don't think I'm ] in the content dispute regarding the sources. If anyone thinks I am, let me know and I'll consider reverting myself. ] (]) 00:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Pblock from mainspace applied. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:I wasn't going to revert again. But NeilN , and John would have likely reverted NeilN. Then someone else would have likely reverted John. So good call on full-protection, Mark. ] (]) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{U|MŞ46}} has been changing Bangladeshi placenames from ] to ] for over a month. They were warned against this on their talk page on and , but did not reply.
	::Note that I took the action John ''implied'' he was taking in his edit summary. . --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 01:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Er, no you didn't. You restored tabloid journalism (NYDN) as well as the celebrity gossip diarrhea you and others are claiming meets our standards. I cannot see why anyone with a brain would edit-war to restore this trash to the article, but the NYDN is an out-and-out tabloid, which clearly and unambiguously fails BLPSOURCES. Why would you edit-war that back into the article? --] (]) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::You know all this could have probably been averted if you provided rational arguments and only taken out sources which have been deemed not reliable by '''previous consensus''' instead of fooling around with , , and very misleading edit summaries - "the Sun is unambiguously a tabloid and cannot ever be used on a BLP" when taking out '''one''' Sun reference and a boatload of others. As for the NYDN, checking on ] and BLPN gives and and ('''you''' were even started the last discussion and said you "...don't know the US market so well"). So not a tabloid but should be used with caution. As far as I can see, you didn't even bring up any material you thought was contentious. You just waded in, crying, "Gossip rag! Tabloid! Trashy! Trashy!" --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 06:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::John, it's time to step away from the computer and have a nice cup of tea before re-engaging. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 09:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	Can someone explain how it helps with ] to identify what you consider a sub-optimal source, and take out the reference to it, but leave behind the text that the ref used to support? It is hard to comment in detail when a makes upwards of 30 changes to an article, but several places there, I'm sure that the edit leaves unreferenced text behind with no 'citation needed' tag. Coupled with the frankly misleading edit summary, and the facts that it was made 10 hours into a AN/I discussion, by the administrator under discussion, on the article that the discussion is about... that does not look like a good or constructive edit to me. --] (]) 07:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			They were warned again on , and to the effect that they were using the official names (which is not in dispute). On , I made a more detailed reply, again emphasising what the common name is and that Misplaced Pages's policy is to use it. They stopped answering in English, but replied in Bengali on . In reply, I explained yet again on .
	* I see a lot of assertions that The Sun ''must never'' be used as a source ''under any circumstances''. In which case, one has to ask - why isn't it blacklisted like ]? ] ] ] 12:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:: Because those assertions aren't correct. ] says "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." ''The Sun'' is a tabloid, but can publish articles that aren't "tabloid journalism", just like many more usually reliable newspapers will have a gossip column that is "tabloid journalism". The catchphrase of ] is "Context matters": "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." There are some articles published in ''The Sun'' that are reliable sources for some statements, and there are some articles published in ''The New York Times'' that aren't reliable sources for other statements. Anyone claiming there is any blanket rule otherwise is simply wrong. --] (]) 14:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::<small>Like John, of course...</small> <font face="Georgia">]<sub>]</font> 14:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::That's a nonsensical interpretation of BLPSOURCES. I will continue to enforce it as it is written, rather than as some people seem to wish it was written, unless it is actually changed. Tabloids can only be used as sources for their own opinions, in general. They should not be used on BLPs, as they have a well-deserved reputation for printing lies. --] (]) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Then you're enforcing it against consensus, it could appear. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::To the original point: examiner.com isn't blacklisted because it's unreliable, it was blacklisted because people were spamming links to it to get their pennies-for-views; that's why it's the ''spam'' blacklist. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	*The only time I would ever use The Sun - or The Mirror - as a source is if it is talking about the birth of someone's child, or their marriage. Otherwise, I avoid them like the plague, for reasons that John expressed.] ] 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	**Luke, "talking about the birth of someone's child, or their marriage" is exactly where we ''shouldn't'' use tabloids! -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	**As a general note, I think a number of American editors (and presumably editors from some other countries) are unfamiliar with which British papers are good sources vs trash sources. It might be helpful for someone to write up a list for reference. ] (]) 21:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	***Mark, these UK publications (not a comprehensive list) are non-RS and should be avoided/purged from BLPs:
	::* '']'' & '']'' dailymail.co.uk
	::* '']'' & '']'' mirror.co.uk
	::* '']'' people.co.uk
	::* '']'' thesun.co.uk
	::* '']'' express.co.uk
	::* '']'' dailysport.co.uk
	::* '']'' dailyrecord.co.uk
	::* '']'' newsoftheworld.co.uk
	::* '']'' dailystar.co.uk
	::* '']'' metro.co.uk -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::*Thanks! I'll make a note of that. ] (]) 23:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::*Can you link to the ] and/or ] disucssions that determined they were unsuitable? Thanks. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 01:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::*No need. They are all 'tabloids' and therefore cannot be used in BLPs. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::*Can you point me to where ''that'' decision was made, please? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::* Or are you claiming these publications are ''not'' tabloids? I checked WP:RSN but can't find a discussion nor decision concerning the , does that mean it is a reputable source? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 07:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::{{out|5}}] mentions the ''Sunday Sport''. It is, as expected, tossed out. However, the same thread mentions the ''Sun'' without any obvious consensus. ] discusses ''The Sun'' in depth, where, due to corresponding coverage in ], it was deemed acceptable to cite it for facts relating to ]. ] is a direct facsimile of the front page of ''The Sun'', and placed prominently on ], which is (unless I missed the news!) is a biography of a living person. I would struggle to write a really broad and comprehensive article on ] without being able to pick out some of his more infamous Sun headlines. Bottom line is - '''usually''' you shouldn't use The Sun, but sometimes you have to. ] ] ] 08:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::: I agree. Any way, AN/I should not be a forum for determining RS if there have been previous discussions on these sources at ]. As I understand AN/I, it is a forum for addressing conduct, not content issues. If RSN has approved the newspapers/magazines under question as RS for a certain kind of sourcing (for example, for validating comments by subjects in an interview or for details about television programming), then the issues shouldn't be rehashed here. I've found those working at RSN to be quite adept at ferreting out what is a valid source and what isn't. "Tabloid" is a vague label applied to journalism one thinks is shoddy and is an imprecise and subjective judgment (opinion can also change over time if the quality of journalism improves). I haven't dug into the RSN discussions to verify the decisions about these sources but I'd accept the consensus there for the scope of their use where they have been deemed "reliable". <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 10:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::] prohibits BLP material whose ''only source'' is ], and links that mainspace article. The article makes it clear that tabloid journalism is not confined to certain newspapers, and also that many papers commonly associated with it are also quite capable of serious factual reporting at other times too. It is a "journalistic approach", not a size of paper. Therefore it is nonsensical (A) to try to compile a definitive list of newspapers that should be "purged from BLPs", (B) to , 20 - 30 refs at a time, and (C) to state " I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do exactly the same the next time" when called out for doing so. --] (]) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::: Without a definitive list (or even just the newspapers mentioned in the ] article), ], then it becomes an subjective judgment of when and where the "journalistic approach" of a paper crosses over the line into "tabloid journalism". While I understand the limitations of having a fixed list of names, I think I'm more comfortable with having a short list than to have each Editor drawing their own conclusions every time they edit an article that uses these sources. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree, however if there is going to be a "tabloid blacklist" it needs to be discussed and determined by ], not simply decreed on the basis of 'these are tabloids, and BLP!!!', which was the reason I requested RSN/BLPN discussion links re: the list above. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 17:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			In the past three days, with no further communication on their part, they have changed names in 80+ articles (from to ) in violation of policy and consensus.
	===To sum up===
	John unilaterally decides People and the NYDN are tabloids, and indiscriminately takes them out of the ] article. He completely ignores feedback on ] and slaps ] with an only warning. He continues to ignore all feedback here saying, "I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do '''exactly the same''' the next time." (emphasis mine) and then calls me a ] (among other insults) and now reiterates he will not change his behaviour while taking another shot at Flyer22 for something . Have I got this right? --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:: No, only partly <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	* Specific issue about Pitt aside, John is openly acting in a disruptive way. Especially the insults, the misleading/fallacious edit summaries (the "Sun" example described above) and the only warning given to Flyer22 are very serious concerns. ] 21:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:: "Only warnings" for what he believed to be repeat BLP issues from an editor he ''believed'' had done the same before is ''not'' neccessarily problematic. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			They need to be blocked to stop the disruption to Bangladesh and West Bengal-related articles. Perhaps an initial block will get them to understand policy and that repeatedly violating it has consequences. If their fluency in English is insufficient to comprehend the policy or to collaborate by communicating in English, then more drastic measures may be needed. --] (]) 23:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Back from the brink===
			* They've started moving pages as well . I've pblocked them from mainspace, perhaps they will start communicating, if possible. I haven't reverted their previous edits, but could do a mass rollback if necessary. ] 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	Ok, I've watched this go on long enough. Key points:
			{{abot}}
	# John did not use their tools in this dispute
	# John used a standard, template (albeit level 4) warning
	# BLP is a touchy subject
	# There is definitely an argument about RS's as a whole
	# Calling anyone "dumbass" or "power hungry" is inappropriate
	In short, nobody is going to lose tools, get blocked, or whatever. The only thing that there is absolute consensus on are the 5 points I raised above. This is not the place where these actual issues will be resolved <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			== User:Jwa05002 and User:RowanElder Making Ableist Comments On WP:Killing of Jordan Neely Talk Page, Threats In Lead ==
	* I have put together a lengthy summary of what I think should happen to ] on the talk page ]. I would like comments on it, because, unless I hear objections, I intend to edit the article as described when full protection expires. I don't see any need for administrator action. ] ] ] 09:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=RowanElder has apologised and their comments have been explained. Jwa05002 ignored the ] and has been indef'd with TPA revoked. Looks like we're done here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:*I think you may want to rephrase that sentence slightly... ] ] 10:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			This occurred on the ], on the talk page section of ] @] decided they could say I couldn't ask for civility in a discussion after it became what I found uncivil. This discussion was already ended. They made comments that I couldn't ask for civility because apparently my userpage was uncivil. They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic and incompetent because they saw I mentioned I was Autistic on my page and then linked to the competence required article. {{rpa}} and then went on a rant about how Misplaced Pages shouldn't allow "severely mentally ill people edit" and how it's sad that Misplaced Pages has devolved to it. RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help. I shouldn't need to say more really. ] (]) 06:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: <small>I found that phrasing a little humourous myself ... there are many things I think should happen to Brad Pitt too, none of which appear at that link LOL </small> <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 17:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*The "key point" that '''John did not use their tools in this dispute''' is misguided. When an admin chooses to enforce BLPSOURCES as they <u>believe</u> they are written, and that admin slaps an editor-in-good-standing with {{tl|uw-biog4im}}, it is obvious that the admin is preparing the path towards blocking their opponent in a content dispute. Yes, it's literally true (I think) that no admin tools have been used in this dispute (apart from the wise protection of the article), but ANI is free to discuss inappropriate behavior regardless of whether a particular rule like ] was violated. The discussions are a little long for me to want to fully digest, but I can't see any claim that the text relying on ''People'' was a BLP violation (no contentious assertions)—apparently the claim is that <u>nothing</u> in a BLP can be sourced to ''People''. That's a noble opinion, but it needs clear backing from a noticeboard before hitting opponents with an "I'm an admin who is going to block you" message. ] (]) 11:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:: It's not at all misguided. There's no proof that John was planning on performing the block himself, and to suggest that he might break ] is throwing ] out the window. ANY editor can drop a 4im warning, and then go looking for an enforcer ... it just so happens that John was the one who ''could'' have blocked. This may come across as a bit of "bullying" - but unless John had actually performed the block, there's nothing ANI-able here - slap his wrists for bullying if you need to. Indeed, this wouldn't even make an RFC/U yet. Based on the pretty uncivil discussions between Flyer and John, and a general level of snarkiness when they discuss each other, it's clear this has rubbed them both the wrong way. I have faith that they are BOTH trying to improve the project - but people need to settle their disagreements like ADULTS, and not keep trying to have the last word <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::How are disagreements supposed to be settled when one party ignores all discussion and insists he would do exactly the same next time? --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Exactly. There's no need to pretend that if John were a non-administrator, he would not have gotten a stern warning from someone other than NeilN by now. It's not like I brought this matter here to debate sources (I took that matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard for that). I brought it here because of, as others have pointed out, John's behavior. The "only warning" template aside, he continued to violate WP:Consensus (a policy) and insists that he will continue to do so. And, yes, as others have noted above, there is WP:Consensus that ''People'' is generally fine to use for biographical content concerning living people. That he will continue to remove ''People'' or the ''New York Daily News'' from Misplaced Pages biographies of living persons (whether the text along with them or not, and even from WP:Featured articles), despite these sources not being restricted and despite ''People'' generally being accepted on Misplaced Pages for biographical content concerning living people, because of his personal preference that they not be used is most problematic. It would be a different story if he were replacing these sources with reliable sources, but he is not (same story with the ] article and others). He is leaving messes in place (and even if removing the text, he is removing material that was validly sourced). And like I noted at the WP:BLP noticeboard, he will be facing a lot of opposition than from just me, given how widely accepted these sources are on Misplaced Pages for biographical content concerning living people and often in general. ] (]) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think that "a bit of "bullying"" is an acceptable part of Misplaced Pages editing etiquette. Or is it "a bit of "bullying"" from an administrator that is par for the course? The original post here questioned the attitude of "we should go by his word or no word at all", and I think that that should be seriously addressed in any conclusion. --] (]) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: I never said that '''any''' bullying was acceptable or "par for the course". But, there's no proof that his intent was to bully, and nobody has provided any diffs to suggest that it's the case, or that it's a pattern. (BTW: As a ''professional'' journalist, I'm surprised that ANYONE is considering using People Magazine as a source for anything but toilet paper) <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::<small>Well I once cited something in ]' article to ], but I thrashed myself 20 times with a belt after doing so.... ] ] ] 16:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)</small>
	It seems to me that ES&L has summarized the situation fairly accurately above. Yes, John did template warn another editor. But, there is no reason why an admin cannot issue templated "you may be blocked" warnings. Short of an "I will block you" statement, there is no reason to believe that John had any intent to block the other editor. What's an admin to do if, in a content dispute, he/she thinks someone is heading for a block other than warn them that they're heading for a block? Yes, John was being obdurate but that's not an actionable offense. There was no edit warring, no 'bad behavior'. My suggestion is that someone close this discussion and that anyone who is not happy with the exclusion of people magazine or the daily news from the pitt article do the work of formulating an RfC to figure out the their acceptability as sources for that article or, if they have excessive time on their hands, an RfC that clarifies where these sources are acceptable and where they're not. --] <small>(])</small> 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:There was no edit warring and no bad behavior on John's part? Well, I suppose I'm glad that various editors above disagree with that statement. ] (]) 17:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::And "being obdurate" against WP:Consensus is an actionable offense. Action is taken against that offense all the time at this noticeboard, even now, and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. And to repeat what I stated on the Brad Pitt talk page, "I don't see why the WP:Consensus formed during should be discarded just because John didn't get his way there. If he's hoping to go through dispute resolution process after dispute resolution process until he eventually gets his way, he can count me out. And given the turnout (number of people participating) for ] and the other dispute resolution processes, being more iffy, and considering the relevancy of the WP:BLP noticeboard in this case, going to the WP:BLP noticeboard about it was probably the best route." Unless, of course, it's a wide-scale WP:RfC. ] (]) 17:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Flyer22, obduracy is not a bad thing but is merely push back against something that an editor feels is incorrect. It is worth bearing in mind that just because a largish group of people feel that the obstinacy is unwarranted, it doesn't mean that it is. Perhaps that editor is right and it is incumbent on you, as the person attempting to add information, to go out and seek wider input, particularly in a BLP. If we did everything merely by counting those in favor and those against, I shudder to think where some of our articles will end up. Obduracy becomes a problem only when it leads to edit warring or some other type of disruptive behavior. Your complaint here is that John has threatened to block you and I don't see that. He has said you may be blocked, not that he will block you. There is a ocean of difference between the two which you may want to ponder. You might also want to think about what you would like to achieve with an ANI complaint. John desysopped? John admonished? None of these is going to happen over what is largely a content issue. Better to take this to an RfC on the content part and subtract from the drama. If I may also add, if there was a history of John using warnings and then blocking people in content disputes, there would be something actionable here. Lacking that pattern, I suggest a quick assumption of good faith that his warning was not with an intent to block. --] <small>(])</small> 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:Oh forgot to @] ] (]) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) {{rpa}}
	::::Being obdurate against WP:Consensus is a bad thing. I am speaking of the word ''obdurate'' with regard to actions. John was not simply stating "I disagree with consensus." He was acting against it. WP:Consensus should be enforced just as much as any other policy, unless there is a ] reason not to do so. There was not such a reason in this case; this is because the WP:BLP noticeboard made it perfectly clear to John that the sources were fine for use, and because that noticeboard and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard have consistently made that case with regard to such matters. As for the ] being on me, it was not. The sources, with the exception of ''The Sun'' or any other source clearly and/or consistently deemed unacceptable, were not invalid to use and I knew it. But did I immediately revert John? No. As well-noted here, I went through the appropriate means to seek wider input. Going to the WP:BLP noticeboard for such input is standard practice. I do not have the means to start a wide-scale WP:RfC where the entire Misplaced Pages community is alerted to this matter. See ] for the options. So unless you are talking about some wide-scale WP:RfC, I have not a clue what you mean by "wider input."
			*Akechi - typically, linking to specific ] rather than talk page sections is the best thing to do when making an ANI report; that is, linking {{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269116979}} and {{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269119175}}, which I assume are the comments you're referring to. Procedural niceties aside, I think you have a right to be upset - the comment by Jwa05002 seems to reflect a very ugly attitude toward mental illness, and RowanElder's remarks are incredibly patronizing - I don't think the comment in which {{they|RowanElder}} say {{tq|I hope Misplaced Pages can perhaps follow best practices from special education experts to deal with ways they may try to participate with disruptive incompetence. It's certainly not a personal attack to try to get people help, even when they take it as such and even react violently against the help as if it were an attack.}}{{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269120723}} could have been more perfectly calculated to infuriate its target if that were {{their|RowanElder}} intention, and when {{they|RowanElder}} commented {{tq|...you're probably deliberately victimizing people who share your struggle. It's sad to see, but again, I'm assuming good faith and I'm sympathetic rather than insulting here}}{{diff|Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely|prev|1269139598}} it does not at all come across like someone who is AGFing. I hope the community will agree that the conduct of these two users is not acceptable and make that clear to them. ] <small>(he/him · ] · ])</small> 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::The consensus that was formed at the WP:BLP noticeboard is based on the weight of the views there, as I mentioned to John, not on headcount. It was me who pointed out there what WP:Consensus means, so I do not need you to give me a lesson on it. You should save that lesson for John. You stated, "Obduracy becomes a problem only when it leads to edit warring or some other type of disruptive behavior." Well, that is exactly what various editors above agree that John did. It's not even an opinion that he was WP:Edit warring (or that I was as well, though I was at least acting with regard to WP:Consensus); it's a fact. And it's a fact that he would have continued to WP:Edit war, considering that he has stated that he would have. And that is exactly why that article needed full-protection. Unlike John, I don't have an administrative status that has given me some false (or not-so-false, considering a few arguments here) sense of exemption from following Misplaced Pages rules when I disagree with them. And read again what I stated in my initial post on this matter above; I did not state that John threatened to block me. I stated that "he issued warning on my talk page (a warning that indicates that he will block me)." Others above obviously agree with that implication. I'm also extremely certain that he would have blocked me, given his actions/statements on this matter after I filed this report. I did not come to this noticeboard because I wanted John "desysopped." I very clearly stated above, "''I have a problem with an administrator issuing a warning that someone is violating a policy, when that warning is based only on his or her opinion, and when the indication is clearly 'I will block you, if you further violate .' He gave me a 'This is your only warning' template, despite the consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and as though I was being some disruptive newbie who doesn't understand WP:BLP policy. I don't see how it can be argued that he did not know very well what implication issuing me that warning would send. I did not feel intimidated, in the sense of being scared to oppose him. I felt threatened, in the sense that he would unjustly block me. Therefore, I felt that I had to beat him to the punch by starting this thread on him.''" As for admonished, he's already been admonished by various editors in this report, who all agree that this is seriously more than a content dispute matter; some of them seem to think that it's more than mostly a content dispute matter. Since you feel the need to advise me, I advise you to read all of what has been stated above on this matter; it does not seem that you have. And if you have, then oh well. It's already been noted that John has a sort of exemption regarding a matter that any other editor (meaning of "lower rank") would have been seriously warned for (by more than just NeilN). ] (]) 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:Who would have more relevant expertise than special education experts, here? Honestly? In dealing with good faith but disruptive contributions to something a lot like classwork?
	:::::You're missing the point so let me be brief. Anyone can issue a "you may be blocked" warning. Admins editing content can issue "you may be blocked" warnings. Reading an "I will block you" implication into a warning is not the same thing as a clearly stated "I will block you". What you are certain John may or may not do in the future is not actionable. Consensus building is not confined to visiting noticeboards and, generally speaking, the person adding information has the responsibility to ensure that there is adequate consensus before making the addition. Especially in a BLP. I'm sorry to see you feel there is some sort of "rank" hierarchy on Misplaced Pages, there isn't, but I've now read your talk page as well and all this is a bit clearer. --] <small>(])</small> 21:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:Please assume good faith for me as well, here. ] (]) 07:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::No, you are missing the point...a point that has been very clearly expressed by various people in this report now. John's opinion that there was not adequate consensus, something he pretty much stated, despite the fact that various editors agree that there was and despite the fact that this has been a consistent consensus, does not give him the right to violate that consensus and edit war his version back into any article. If everyone violated WP:Consensus because they felt that it was not "adequate consensus," which in John's case meant "not in agreement with my view," then that policy would be useless and countless articles would be in peril or an even bigger mess than they already are. You make it sound like I should have went through every WP:Dispute resolution process there is to get a consensus that you or John would have deemed adequate, but I did make sure that there was adequate consensus before reverting John. He had none to restore his version; WP:Consensus works both ways, including on BLPs. And I don't know why you feel that any outcome that deems ''People'' acceptable would have caused John to back off and state, "Oh, okay, I accept that." But he has made it extremely clear that he will never accept consensus on such a matter. As for rank, administrators technically are of a higher rank, and they often are treated differently because of it (as others agree below, many have stated across Misplaced Pages, and as has been shown on this noticeboard more times than I can remember). But if you notice, I put "lower rank" in parentheses. As for your personal opinion about me, RegentsPark (whether what I've noted or anywhere else on my talk page), I care not. Not one bit. ] (]) 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*::You cannot substitute your personal experience for ], nor can you analyze other editors, and especially you cannot resort to ] such as {{tq|disruptive incompetence}}. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::No one has to accept consensus on anything - assuming that there is a consensus for what John went against (I haven't seen a definitive link to that consensus but I could have missed it in the reams above). If that becomes the norm, then consensus will never change. What matters is what someone does. And, my point is that John has not done anything outside the normal norms. If he blocked you or said "I will block you", that would be a different matter. Perhaps you should have asked him if he had any intention of blocking you himself. A simple yes or no would have made this straightforward. If he violated 3RR, he should, and I certainly hope would, be blocked. Failing these, I'm still uncertain as to what it is you're seeking. (And I have no opinion of you so what's that about? ) --] <small>(])</small> 23:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:::I am definitely confused about this.
	:::::::::Misplaced Pages editors have to accept consensus, in the sense that, if they are aware of it, they are not supposed to violate it unless it is a WP:Ignore all rules matter. WP:Consensus is policy, not merely a guideline, and it should be respected as policy. I've already stated that John has the right to disagree with WP:Consensus; he does not have the right to violate it. Or maybe he does, considering that he has been given a free pass on this matter when many non-administrators have been warned and/or blocked by an administrator for repeatedly violating WP:Consensus, WP:Edit warring and/or hurling insults. I've already been over this with you. And there is no "assuming" what the WP:Consensus is on this; it was, and still is, against John...which is well-noted in this report. This is not about WP:Consensus never changing. Every experienced Misplaced Pages editor knows that it can change (or at least the significant majority of them know that). It's about current/consistent WP:Consensus, and it having been violated by John. Your point or points are misguided, in my opinion, because you see nothing wrong with John's clear problematic behavior during all of this; you are the only editor here claiming that he did nothing wrong. As for talking to John, I'd rather not try to communicate with an editor who not only has shown me such disrespect as to slap me with that four-level warning about violating the WP:BLP policy after I got the unanimous "It's okay to use" go-ahead from the WP:BLP noticeboard (a go-ahead that ), but also has shown that he cannot or will not debate the matter at hand and will rather only peep in to reiterate that he is right and will continue to act against WP:Consensus. I also had no reason to trust his word (I had no more WP:Assume good faith left to give him, just as it seems that he had no more to give me; that is, if he ever had any to give me to begin with on this matter, which I seriously doubt). And I had no desire to let him think that he could get away with treating me or any other Misplaced Pages editor in such a way by simply As for having an opinion on me, I was obviously referring to your comment about having read my talk page; that comment obviously refers to your opinion on my views. ] (]) 01:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:::First, I have seen and been told "competence is required" many times and I generally assumed good faith constructive criticism and policy enforcement there rather than that the person invoking "competence is required" was making a personal attack. I have had a lot of trouble understanding what is regarded as incivility and not in this community.
	::::::] this is the second time you've made reference to "adding information". ] was not adding any new information. They were restoring references to the article that had been there for quite some time, indiscriminately removed by John because of his self-declaration of "tabloid!" and leaving some sentences unreferenced. ] does not apply only to additions, it applies to ''changes'', be they additions, modifications, or removal of long-standing material. I have no idea why you are glossing over John's primary responsibility in this except for, well... --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 23:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:::Second, it seems prima facie that editors do analyze one another frequently, for instance I was just analyzed and will be further analyzed in this incident notice discussion so long as it continues, so I am confused what you mean here. ] (]) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You know, I've always discounted the "admins protect themselves" complaints that appear here with some regularity. I don't think I'll be passing them over so lightly in the future. Admin + "BLP! BLP! BLP!" = basically a free pass. Got it. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*::::] is an evaluation ''only'' when users have demonstrated repeated inability to edit collaboratively due to either refusal to read the rules, or inability comprehend them. It's not a blanket for you to insult a user by stating their edits are {{tq|disruptive incompetence}}.
	:: While that appears to be evident here, ], I've also seen long-time Editors who are not Admins be given a free pass if they have Admin allies. The logic seems to be "blocks are preventive, not punitive...but Editor A has said a block won't affect their conduct so why impose one"? It's a neat trick but only seems to apply to a few people. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*::::Your second point is rhetorical wordplay, and does not reflect well on you. Knock it off. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I'm sure we all have our opinions and can make generalizations about what routinely does happen versus what ''should'' happen on ANI. That's all very interesting and may well deserve further discussion elsewhere, but it isn't helping to resolve this case. We can disagree over some of the details, but there do seem to be some salient points that consensus should be possible on:
			*:::::I don't understand this and I'm not doing wordplay. I'm genuinely confused. But I'll knock it off anyway; I'm going to take a break. ] (]) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::* Flyer22 acted not only within policy but followed best practice in discussing the disputed content and sourcing at article talk and in seeking guidance at BLP/N.
			*::As a disabled person who currently works in special education, there are ''many'' reasons we wouldn't want "special education experts" (or their suggestions) dispatched to deal with a Certain Kind of Contributor. For one, it's a bit patronizing as described above--why do certain editors have to be dealt with under certain different people or rules? It's also worth noting that a lot of special education professionals, even ones who believe they're doing good things, often adopt practices that can be hurtful or problematic--this is all anecdotal, of course, but a number of my coworkers will miss very obvious potential causes of student distress just because they don't get distressed by the same thing, and at least one of my other coworkers was directly ableist to another of my coworkers behind her back without even realizing that's what she was doing. If there's anyone who can speak to best practices about interaction it's probably people with the disability in question (i.e. the ] stance), but to be honest, in practice, Misplaced Pages's existing guidelines and policies regarding user interaction and editing do a pretty good job of setting the ground rules and describing what you need to do to edit collaboratively in a productive way. - ] (]) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::* John disregarded consensus in removing the disputed content, failed to provide a legitimate policy-based justification for doing so, acted provocatively by templating a regular and threatening her with a block, indicated he will pursue an identical course of action if similar instances arise in the future, and has made profoundly uncivil remarks since this thread has been open.
			*:::My comments did not communicate my intent well to this community, and I have apologized for that. I recognize these concerns, and if I had written longer comments, adding these concerns would have been among my first extensions of what I wrote. I was disruptively incompetent when it came to speaking to the sensitivities in this community. ] (]) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Nitpicks aside, if we can agree with the general thrust of the above, one thing seems perfectly clear: if this thread is closed with no resolution of any kind, there will be another thread very much like it sometime in the future. What then? RfC/U? Arbcom? It would be a shame to think that the community cannot deal with this sort of thing when it happens. I don't have any concrete proposals (clearly, my earlier suggestion of a trout and a promise has gone out the window) but I do think we need some clarity and some closure, and those aren't being provided by the adminstrators who have commented thus far. ] (]) 19:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:(0) The discussion had seemed inconclusive to me rather than ended. My prior experience as an editor has been mostly on pages where weeks can go between talk messages easily, so if this was a mistake it was a newcomer's mistake of not understanding the different tempo on this page.
	::::Exactly. The "no 'bad behavior'" comment made above implies that ] thinks everything was fine with John's behavior. If the roles were reversed, and Flyer22 or I started indiscriminately pulling out cites to an established reference we didn't like, refused to discuss with an objecting admin, templated them, called them names, and then reiterated we'd do the same all over again, I think the thrust of the conversation here would be ''slightly'' different. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:(1) I did not say @] could not ask for civility; I did find it ironic that they would ask for civility given that their userpage at that time seemed quite uncivil. I do think this indicates incompetence at judging civility and incivility and I, possibly erroneously, did not think it would be an aspersion or personal attack to say so on the basis of the immediate and policy-relevant (disruptive editing policy, explained by "competence is required") evidence. There is a "competence is required" principle and I have seen it invoked without violating the "no personal attacks" policy, though I'll be first to admit I don't understand the lines there very well.
	:::: Of course, ], you're right. Thanks for getting us back on track. I agree with your assessment but also note the discussion (above) with the last comment by ] where we mention having a discussion (on RSN?) about what constitutes "tabloid journalism" and what is not on that list. There are a range of opinions on whether this should be an actual list of tabloids to avoid (if there isn't a more reliable source available) or a set of criteria that makes journalism cross over from legitimate to "tabloidish". I definitely think it shouldn't be up for debate every time an Editor edits an article on a public figure. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:(2) I did not endorse or "go along with" @]'s characterization of @] as schizophrenic: I passed over it in silence trying "not to take the bait" of what could have easily become personal attacks (not that I thought @] was making a personal attack there, more like personally despairing of the challenge of finding consensus about reality with self-identified schizophrenics and autistics). I flatly disagreed with @] that "this is what Misplaced Pages has become."
			:(3) I do endorse a general principle that when mental illness compromises an editor's competence, they should not edit Misplaced Pages in the domains in which they are thereby incompetent. I do believe "competence is required" and I don't know why mental illness would possibly be an exception. (I can't imagine what fun I might have had editing in the archaeoastronomy area recently if Misplaced Pages did allow that exception!)
			:(4) I do hope that the admins and arbs and the community as a whole will figure out good, humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'd like everyone to everyone to note point 4, I think we should note the "humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages" part. ] (]) 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Should Misplaced Pages deal inhumanely with the mental ill? What is going on here? I am extremely lost. ] (]) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::''You cannot diagnose other people as mentally ill''. That is a direct personal attack and can result in you being sanctioned. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, of course: I did not call anyone mentally ill much less diagnose anyone. I pointed out that an editor self-identified as autistic without intending that to be an attack. And I won't even do that again, since "assuming good faith" is not extending to "assuming that references to mental illness are not necessarily attacks." Probably correctly, in retrospect for me! But the "assume good faith" policy has been something I've myself been incompetent to understand in its community-consensus application so far on Misplaced Pages, and so I was disruptively incompetent and I've both apologized for that and said I would avoid doing it again. ] (]) 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The user in question has described themselves as schizophrenic in previous posts. Schizophrenia by definition is a mental illness.
			:::::] ] (]) 20:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::No I didn't you are thinking of another user I will not name. ] (]) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{edit conflict}} (but I did the work, so I'm posting it) {{Non-admin comment|admin}} OP, you should provide diffs. You did link to the conversation, but every specific instance of untowardness you mention should be cited directly, as a courtesy to the admins' time. But I read the whole conversation and don't like it, so I did some legwork for you. {{tq|They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic}}. This edit was amended. {{tq|Jwa proceeded to come in and say I was a schizophrenic}}. {{tq|RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help}}.
			:I view assuming an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence to not actually be ], but I defer. I don't know that this warrants being at ANI or if it's just bad behavior, but the schizophrenia thing certainly deserves an apology from both of them. I'm not involved. Just providing diffs. POST EDIT CONFLICT: I also don't buy Rowan's argument that they weren't going along with the schizophrenia thing. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 07:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	I started off in this discussion close to where I think {{mention|RegentsPark}} is most recently. Since that time, though, partly based on John's response (there wasn't a lot of it) here, I've shifted. Without expressing a firm opinion, though, I'd like to ask Flyer what they are asking for.--] (]) 23:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::"You don't buy it"? Where is the assumption of good faith here? ] (]) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'd obviously want it made clear to John by an administrator (not like there's any chance of him listening to a non-administrator) that he cannot continue to get away with acting the way that Rivertorch has described above. As ''People'' is consistently accepted as a reliable source for biographies of living persons across Misplaced Pages, John has no right to remove it from these articles in the careless way that he has been doing. If he continues to do so, then as I and Rivertorch have pointed out, this matter will be back at WP:ANI soon enough and/or it will go through the other means that Rivertorch described. But let's be real here: Nothing is going to be done with regard to John at this time. ] (]) 01:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			::I did not generically assume "an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence" but specifically suggested that their social judgment about particular incivility was incompetent in this case. I would never do the former, and frankly it is an aspersion to suggest I did. ] (]) 07:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Are you saying I or other Autistic people for that matter can't pass social judgement? ] (]) 07:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No. I thought you had already made a poor social judgment and I was looking for a good faith explanation that would not be a personal attack. I thought that, if you are really up front about your autism like on your userpage, then you would not feel being called autistic would be an insult. I would never have speculated about it if you were not already identified and I thought it was a misjudgment before I read your userpage. ] (]) 08:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You obviously have never met an Autistic person because calling someone out their disability and going "but don't worry though your just Autistic so you didn't do it in bad faith or anything". You don't think that sounds patronising or rude, you just didn't like my social judgement and saw my disability as a way to excuse yourself. ] (]) 08:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::"You obviously have never met an Autistic person" is wildly uncivil, ungrounded, personal attack. I am really lost here. ] (]) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sorry I didn't give diffs I'm kinda new to this stuff. Thank you for putting in the effort as well. ] (]) 07:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*], you are revealing a lot of personal information here about other editors that might need to be revision deleted. Please do not do that in the future. There are a lot of BLP violations in this discussion so far and assumptions about "mental illness" as well that are distressing to see from other editors. But, Akechi, I also notice that you are spending all of your talk on your User page and talk pages like ] instead of editing to improve articles. Your own User page states {{tq|I'd rather not edit Misplaced Pages and rather just discuss disputes, move requests and talk about usage of sources or claims of bias, I'm not very good at source editing}} which is not a good sign for an editor on this project. Jwa05002 is also spending all of their time on ] so maybe you both could use a partial block from this talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	I would take John's lack of participation in this part of the thread to suggest that he has ], and would suggest that everyone does likewise. I realise Flyer22 is probably not going to send him a Christmas card, but that's just the way things go sometimes. There are millions of articles on Misplaced Pages to edit, and hence it's pretty easy to just work on another topic for a bit. ] ] ] 07:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:I wouldn't mind that actually, also please do remove the mentions of me saying who the user who had schizophrenia was, I realise now that it's not my place to talk about. ] (]) 07:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:John barely participated in the WP:BLP noticeboard discussion as well. That's apparently the way he is, as I've already noted and as others have similarly noted. He is not much of a communicator/debater, from what I've seen, at least not on Misplaced Pages. He simply peeps in to reiterate that he is right and that he will continue to act up. If you think that he is going to stop acting inappropriately on this matter, even though he has assured that he will not, you are mistaken. As for John getting away with this mess, see above -- not surprising; I'm at least glad that various others have called out his behavior during this matter as disruptive, highly disruptive, concerning, a serious concern, etc., and that it's clear that some of us get special privilege. So go ahead and close this thread, and see that the problem (John's aforementioned inappropriate behavior) continues in part or in whole. Whatever. ] (]) 08:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			*::I am also looking to get into editing articles, though I do not have the time to be a full time editor. ] (]) 07:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Those comments by @] and @] are beyond the pale. Stating that mental illness or neurodivergence is a ] issue should never be tolerated, particularly given it's highly likely that a lot of our community are neurodiverse or mentally ill. Blocks should follow for both editors. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It's also surreal to see the comments about autism in this discussion, you do know, I hope, that we have probably hundreds of active editors on this project that are autistic or are on the spectrum. It's not rare to be an autistic editor on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone chooses to put that fact on their User page but that doesn't erase their presence. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Given that the editors seem a lot more interested in arguing on talk pages, I'd suggest there's some ] going on. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I made exactly this point that there are a lot on Misplaced Pages in one of my comments about a likely unintended consequence of @]'s incivility on their userpage, which, I quote, included "I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site." ] (]) 07:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The full quote is "I Autistic and pansexual (I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site.).". And clearly being Autistic upset a couple of people. ] (]) 07:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::And no the lack of am is not a typo. ] (]) 07:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Please assume good faith! Autism did not upset me and nor did pansexuality. But "I hope I upset people who do not share my values" cannot possibly be civil discourse. ] (]) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It's not my values it's my existence, being Autistic or Pansexual isn't values, it's just how I am. ] (]) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::At ] you wrote: "{{tq|I'm going to assume good faith and cite that user page: that this user is most likely a self-described autistic acting incompetently rather than in bad faith. Unfortunately, competence is required, see ]}}". I don't see any other interpretation for that than an act with malice directed towards a neurodiverse editor because of their neurodivergence. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::How about this: I was baffled by the level of incivility and I thought this would be an honorable way out of a bad look for Akechi, since I don't stigmatize the social blindness of the autistic? It was a horrible, horrible mistake but I thought that ''because'' autism is so well accepted here, including by myself, that this would be a place I could make a narrow recommendation: "hey, this matter of incivility is a social misjudgment of a kind that probably does have a good faith explanation." ] (]) 08:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::You are assuming I can't make social judgements, that seems uncivil to me. I have just same right to make social judgements as you do. ] (]) 08:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I was not assuming that you could not. I saw what I thought was a terrible misjudgment that @] was struggling to see in any good faith way and suggesting a way to recover good faith, but without excusing the brazen incivility I thought I saw. ] (]) 08:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I did not say mental illness is in itself a WP:CIR issue. I said that, at times, particular mental illness will imply particular WP:CIR issues. What in the world is going on? ] (]) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Jwa heavily implied and you didn't call him out. ] (]) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've quoted exactly what you said above just now. You don't have much wiggle room there. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, autism is specifically correlated with social blindnesses. It's definitionally constitutive. That means that specifically for judgments of tone, like the one Akeshi was implicitly making, autism seemed relevant – and ''exculpatory''! ] (]) 08:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It's not social blindnesses it's a sometimes struggle to pick up on social cues (Autistic people display a range of symptoms and some differ), also cool you do think I can't make social judgements. ] (]) 08:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Your ill-founded judgments aren't doing you any favours here. You should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi and then having the good sense to shut up before someone starts a block discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Clearly, it is not doing me favors and I am deeply deeply confused. I wouldn't know what to apologize for, at this point. ] (]) 08:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::For starters, for implying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors. I'm going to assume good faith that that may not have been your intent, but it's ''absolutely'' the way literally everybody else has taken it. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Thank you: I apologize completely for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by everyone else as saying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors because they were autistic. ] (]) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::(I repeated a variant of this apology below, more personally to @], and Akechi graciously accepted the apology there. Thanks again @].) ] (]) 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It seems to me that we are dealing with the intersection of two issues here. The content issue is that Jordan Neely was misbehaving severely on a subway car, and the intervention of Daniel Penny lead, quite sadly, to his death. Since Penny was acquitted, ] policy forbids Misplaced Pages editors from describing Penny as a "bad person" or implying guilt. The second issue is how editors should interact during content disputes with other editors who self-describe on their user page as autistic and having ADHD and being pansexual and an agent of chaos. Personally, I do not care about "pansexual" in the slightest because I could not care less what editors do or don't in bed or on the sofa (couch). Autistic editors and editors with ADHD are perfectly welcome to edit Misplaced Pages as long as they comply with our policies and behavioral guidelines, just as every other editor is expected to do. If I happened to state "I am not autistic" on my user page (which I don't), then I would not expect any harsher treatment for misconduct than another editor who claims to be autistic. Since all editors should be treated the same within reason, I do not see the benefit of these declarations. They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, but editors are perfectly free to make such declarations as long as they understand that other editors are likely to read them and draw inferences, stated openly or not. As for the inherent declaration in their username that the editor is {{tpq|The Agent Of Chaos}}, I find that far more troubling than the other self-declarations. The most generous interpretation is that the editor is trying too hard to be ironic and amusing, like the new hipster pizzeria in my home town that actually makes great innovative pizzas. But combined with the other self-declarations, I am confronted with legitimate questions about what this editor's goals and intentions actually are here, and I should remind the editor that actual agents of chaos get blocked pretty promptly on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Disruptive promotion ==
			*::Do you really think that me calling myself an Agent Of Chaos is a serious thing and not just a reference. ] (]) 08:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Like it's my name, I know there is an editor that has The Liar at the end of their username do we assume they are one. ] (]) 08:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'm just stating my mental disabilities dude why is this a problem, are you gonna get mad at my userbox that says the same thing. ] (]) 08:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{u|Akechi The Agent Of Chaos}}, I think that you have dug a hole for yourself, and instead of climbing out, you are digging ever deeper. In the simplest terms, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why should anyone reading this thread be reassured that you share that goal? ] (]) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::What does that have anything to do with this discussion other than you trying excuse others of wrongdoings. ] (]) 08:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::@], the behaviour of all involved parties in under the microscope when you make reports here. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Fair, I am getting into article editing, also how old is my account, what like a few months old, this is getting to ] stuff. This sounds like an excuse but I am trying to be a helpful member of the community and I'm kinda scared that I will mess things up with source editing. ] (]) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::I'm going to stop talking now. ] (]) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::For the admins' consideration, this reply is (I hope) partly because of me . So it sounds like they're willing to take advice. <span style="font-family:monospace">]]</span> 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::If you want to be helpful, start ] or review the ] looking for vandalism that needs reverting (make sure you set the filters appropriately) or anything that directly assists with the quality of articles. If you don't do at least something to help with building the project, it won't take long for others to decide that you are ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Thanks to Closhund's suggestions I actually started copy editing, it's not that scary anymore. I think I was just overwhelmed with editing massive cyclopedia. ] (]) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::This is an interesting point - I posted a userbox saying I have ADHD, along with liking videogames and cats, as I see it as a part of me that I absolutely hated for decades until I was diagnosed recently. I posted it as a way to perhaps ask for a little patience, as I might be more prone to long posts or changing my edits after having another thought or idea (impulse control is an issue with ADHD). In my case, I intended it as an explanation, ''not'' an excuse. I still really and expect to be treated the same as anyone else.
			*::Nevertheless, I angered someone earlier, who weaponised my ADHD and used it to claim I was incompetent and shouldn't be here. Quite a few admins were singled out in those posts, but they specifically focused on my ADHD for an inordinate amount of time. They were also cut and pasted into other people's Talk pages.
			*::Whilst I'm well aware this was a malicious user and am ''not'' ashamed of my ADHD, nor will I hide it (I've done that for far too long), I'm now thinking I should remove those boxes - this is the internet, you can't tell what other people are thinking and it's easy to misunderstand others.
			*::Neurodivergence is a relatively-new condition (compared to depression, anxiety etc. it's only really been accepted in the past few decades), so there are a lot of misunderstandings and stigma attached to it. The prevalence of self-diagnosis and misinformation on social media doesn't help, as there are those who do want attention and/or use it as an excuse.
			*::I'm not sure what I'm going to do to be honest. I might remove the userboxes since they're apparently doing more harm than good. I've got to work now, but I'll decide later & just wanted to put this view forward. ] (]) 08:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::BTW Apologies if this is now off-topic, the thread was moving really fast! ] (]) 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::], userboxes are a personal decision you have to make. Just know that many editors don't make use of userboxes and could very well share interests and conditions with those editors who do post them. It's self-identification and that can change over time. I think the one thing you can't control is how editors who encounter a self-identification will perceive you. That fact has caused some editors to simply blank their User pages so they don't have to worry about how bits of data about themselves could lead to other editors' judging them. But other individuals want to put all of their cards on the table. It's your call and just know, you can change your mind about it any time you want. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] Exactly right - I was aware of the negative perception, but someone who's looking for a reason to dislike another person will usually pick up on stuff like that first since it's an easy target. My workplace has been incredibly supportive so I've been letting my guard down, but that's not really a good idea online. Plus the userboxes were all shiny & colourful so I headed straight for them without thinking!
			:::::I don't know if I'll keep the ADHD box since it may be doing more harm than good but the cat one will stay for now, since my furry demonic familiar demands it. ] (]) 14:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::With due respect, Cullen, I very strongly disagree with you when you say {{tq|"They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment"}}. This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way and arguably a failure to AGF. Since neurodivergent people are quite literally ''defined'' by their neurotypes, this is no more or less self-identifying than, for example, gender orientation declarations; both are useful for editors wishing to meet, work with, and, importantly, take advice from editors who share identities and thus can relate. I second what Liz says below.
			:::I have no comment on this particular situation otherwise as an apology appears to have been made. ] ] 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If you don't mind, I've apologized and I meant it, and I'm trying to understand what I could have done differently at a finer grain than "never engage about any issue of mental health with respect to competence on Misplaced Pages again," which will be my safety-first default from here until I do get better understanding.
			::::This reply confused me, and if I can ask without being seen to be hunting for chinks in armor or trying to litigate after the issue is resolved or anything like that, @], was this meant to be a disagreement that {{tq|They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment}}, i.e., a disagreement that that particular form of ableist prejudice exists? Or is it a disagreement with the prejudice, and thus an implicit attribution of the prejudice to @]? The latter did not seem like the most natural good faith reading of @]'s comment, but the former doesn't make sense to me together with {{tq|This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way}} since it doesn't seem sensible that recognizing the fact of ableist prejudice would be in itself ableist (it seems the opposite, that recognizing such prejudices exist is often part of fighting such prejudices).
			::::I've been incompetent at judging what people would interpret of my posts so far, and if I'm being incompetent in this interpretation in this reply in some blameworthy way I'll happily apologize for this as well, but I'm genuinely lost and would appreciate some more light on this if it's not a pain to provide it. ] (]) 15:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::To my understanding, Cullen328 seemed to be stating (without referring to specific evidence, so it's unclear what their supporting evidence for this is) that editors who see someone have a userbox that refers to their disability assume the disabled editor is looking for special treatment. I think Jasper Deng's response was suggesting the following: people who assume disabled editors are looking for special treatment because they disclosed their disability are not assuming good faith of those disabled editors and might be doing something ableist by making that assumption. For a lot of people, sharing that they're disabled is no different than sharing that they're gay or a woman, and most people would not look at someone disclosing one of ''those'' and also think the editor is looking for preferential treatment. My understanding might be wrong, but it's what I'm getting from this interaction. Does that make sense? - ] (]) 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I do think that makes sense, insofar as I do definitely understand how the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" would be judged to be ableist, but it doesn't address my confusion. This was what I meant by "the latter" of the two interpretive alternatives in my comment just before this. My confusion was about why @] would have said that together with {{tq|I very strongly disagree with you}} when I didn't see @] necessarily endorsing the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" in their original comment, just the belief "they are often perceived as claims for preferential treatment," which would not itself imply @] has or agrees with that perception. ] (]) 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Thanks for your prior reply, and don't worry about this one after all. I'm going to stop trying to engage here and stop trying to figure out my confusion, I've had enough. ] (]) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] To be entirely fair, the phrase "Agent of Chaos" is fairly common in various forms of media and seems more likely to be a reference to something (], or , or , etc.) than an indicator that the user is acting in bad faith. ] (]) 04:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{u|CambrianCrab}}, I readily agree that the "agent of chaos" concept is used in certain genres of fiction. But we are not writing a work of fiction here. We are writing an encyclopedia and anyone who actually behaves like a agent of chaos gets blocked promptly and indefinitely. So, I do not think that it is unreasonable to express concern about an editor choosing to portray themself that way. ] (]) 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Would you like me to change my name if it concerns you that much ] (]) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I get like username policy and names shouldn't imply intent to troll and stuff but if we actually enforced that tons of people would have to change their usernames, once again I know a user that has The Liar at the end of their name but they aren't one. I feel like the most reasonable assumption is that my username is either a joke or a reference, as it is both. I feel like it's not assuming of good faith to think I'm an actual agent of chaos just because my username says I am. ] (]) 06:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Cullen, I think this is reaching. Just as my name is a play on words, Agent of Chaos is also a tongue in cheek username that does not strike me as indicative of the user's intent to cause harm. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree this is reaching and one thing i hate is when people try to find something completely unrelated and throw a fit about it ]] 20:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Cyberwolf is fiction so… ]] 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Mental illness can create a competency issue in pretty much any aspect of life. For example, a person can be found too mentally ill to stand trial in a court. I’m not sure why wikipedia should be an exception.
			::It’s unfortunate and sad for sure, but it’s simply a fact that some people are too mentally ill to be objective, reasonable, and yes even competent.
			::Obviously there are varying degrees of mental illness, and some are able to control it better than others. But there should definitely be a threshold where reasonable can say “this person is too mentally ill to edit” ] (]) 18:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think that's not a judgement any complete stranger can make over the internet, including on Misplaced Pages. You could definitely call attention to disputed content or problematic conduct without making the assumption that it's connected to the disability of someone you do not know personally based on what you think you know about a specific editor, their disability, or how the latter affects the former. People can definitely come to consensuses that users cannot edit constructively without needing to declare that it's ''because they have a specific disability''. Connecting the two like that is very likely to instead come across as (and/or ''be'') a personal attack. - ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] I apologize completely and unreservedly for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by you (and everyone else who has said something here so far, but especially by you because your feelings were the ones hurt) as saying that you were less competent than other editors because you were autistic.
	{{archive top|1={{User|Billboarder22}} blocked indef. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 09:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)}}
			:That seems important to say before any finer-grained points. I am sorry for that, completely and unreservedly. ] (]) 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{userlinks|Billboarder22}}
			::Thank you, I accept your apology ] (]) 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{La|Sylfronia King}}
			*:::The bottom line is that '''every single editor''' is expected to fully follow our behavioral guidelines, no matter what they believe about their own mental health or what diagnoses that professionals have made. I was feeling quite depressed about ten day ago for reasons that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, and I have been climbing out of it without letting it affect my editing, because my Misplaced Pages editing gives me solace. If any editor is confident that they can edit productively despite a mental health challenge, then go for it. If your specific challenge impedes useful collaborative editing,then take a break until you feel better. ] (]) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{La|Ariel de Lion}}
			*::::I will keep that in mind ] (]) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Once Jwa receives this I won't get involved. ] (]) 08:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Thanks for that grace. ] (]) 08:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::It's good to see a proper apology here. I must admit that I'm so used to seeing non-apology apologies that that is what I was expecting. ] (]) 09:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I've meant it from the beginning that I didn't intend to use @]'s autism as a disqualification of them. I considered the incivility disqualifying and I considered their comments about civility to show additional disqualifying incompetence of social judgment, and then I intended to highlight their self-identified autism as a possible way of reconciling the incivility and incompetence with good faith to cool and stop the uncivil running conflict with @] (who I thought was also responsible for incivility and making poor judgment calls, such as moving from the specific/local frustration about incompetence and incivility (actually blameworthy) to general/global frustration with neurodivergence (not blameworthy)).
			*::::This I now see was naive and strongly against community norms, in particular viewed as unacceptably patronizing and ableist in itself, and so I'm not going to do that again here and I do find it easy to make a complete and genuine apology for having broken those norms.
			*::::In my friendships and collaborations with autistic people in offline life, I will continue to do what has made my friendships and collaborations with them work so far. This sometimes does include very direct conversation about when to step away from fights when someone is missing social cues, but in my context it is rarely blamably patronizing or ableist to do so since there's an already strong expectation of respect for neurodivergence (and in the rare cases it is blamably patronizing or ableist, I also listen to that and stop as quickly as possible, like I am here). One of my main takeaways here is that on Misplaced Pages, the general patterns of unwanted but de facto incivility mean that there is not strong expectation that people do already respect the neurodivergent, in fact the reverse: a pretty strong expectation that communication that could be disrespect for the neurodivergent is disrespect for the neurodivergent. That seems true (that too many people don't respect neurodivergence) and important, and insofar as I wasn't already seeing it, it was because I was tripping over the "assume good faith" policy trying not to assume others were prejudiced against the neurodivergent and/or disrespecting the neurodivergent (since that seemed like it would be assuming bad faith).
			*::::I don't yet understand how to reconcile "assume good faith" and "proactively defend people from systemic prejudices" very well. Off of Misplaced Pages I just don't assume good faith! It's something I think a lot of contemporary American political discourse has been choking on, and I think it'll be worth my time to continue thinking about it with this additional information from this experience. ] (]) 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Hey to be honest this is a model example on how to apologize on and explain your behavior and how you want to improve here. This is what we need more of. I read through your apology several times and can’t detect bad faith from you. You’ve done well and I’ll admit working with neurodivergent individuals can be/will be challenging w/o pretty much whole life experience. I’ve made mistakes. We all will. :3 ]] 17:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Thank you, this means a lot. I was worried it was just being taken as more bad faith when I wasn't getting other replies earlier. I've had a terrible time here and I need a break. ] (]) 23:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::No you did great ]] 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::Thanks. Really, I do mean it. Still, on my own terms I don't feel at all good and I should take some time away. ] (]) 23:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::wikipedians who are in this big of ani and are the subjects, should take a big break this is the most scary stressful and some what notorious page ]] 00:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:While I can't comment on @] as I've not interacted with them, I will note that I already reported @] concerning (in part) some of these issues about a month ago. People wanting to judge any misbehavior, with full context, may want to read ] where I engaged with them on it, as well as ], which has specific diffs (all of this was when my username was LaughingManiac).
	Billboarder22 is here to promote ] and entities related to de Bey. All of BB's edits revolve around that. Even more telling than BB's contributions are his deleted contributions. One of them is ], which supposedly was founded by De Bey and by ]. Their "distributor" is ], which was created by BB in 2010, deleted, recreated, and recently deleted as a result of ]. Take a look at , which offers to create pages at Misplaced Pages and notes ] (related to de Bey), the World Live Music page, the de Lion page, and ] (as far as I know unrelated to BB and de Bey). The other company supposedly founded by de Bey that you see a lot is ], another of BB's deleted pages.
			:For full disclosure, since I was fairly heavily involved at ] and promised to disengage to avoid ], I'll attempt to refrain from getting too deep into this particular discussion. It also bears mentioning that I ended up retracting the report myself, as can be seen above. Part of it was based on my own experience as a mentally ill person and expectations concerning how the topic be handled, and I found that Jwa05002 made a valid point that personal experience cannot dictate neutral Misplaced Pages editing, something which seemed supported by ], specifically the last sentence. So, I closed the report (with the - ] - mutual understanding that there would be no more ] on Jwa05002's part), and disengaged.
			:I can say that my personal view of this subject is that there were problematic undertones both in how Jordan Neely's mental illness had been weaponized by Penny's defense, as well as in how it was being discussed on the talk page. I found Jwa05002's own mentions and utilization of the topic very offensive, to me personally, which is (in part) why I disengaged, since because I was personally affected in this case, I felt it would be difficult for me to participate neutrally. On a semi-related point, I do feel that Misplaced Pages in general would benefit from stricter guidelines concerning "personal experiences" beyond merely dismissing them, given that the manner in which some of the content in cases like these is treated, as well as the overt and rampant generalizations or prejudiced discourse against already vulnerable populations, may well discourage marginalized editors from contributing. But, this is ultimately a different topic that would be better suited for ].
			:I will also mention, however, that it'd be rather disappointing in my view if (which to me reads like a personal attack, never even mind that the notion that "severely mentally ill people" shouldn't be allowed to participate on Misplaced Pages is deeply troubling to me) is allowed to stand.
			:{{underline|EDIT: For ''fuller'' disclosure, I will note that I was pinged to this discussion by Akechi mentioning me, in diffs ] I'm unsure whether this counts as ]? Hopefully not - my intent here is merely to provide context concerning a dispute in which I was originally involved in, which seems relevant, if not identical, to this one in my eyes.}} ] (]) 17:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I know little about the Jordan Neely case, and have not investigated it in particular, but have to give a few words about Misplaced Pages editing by people who are mentally ill or neurodivergent. I have a mental illess (I don't know if it's severe enough for {{u|Jwa05002}}, but I lost about half my working life because of it), and, largely through that, I know plenty of people with autism, ADHD and schizophrenia. I don't choose to display my mental status on my user page, but reveal it when relevant. I just checked and a have made nearly 49,000 edits since 2007. I don't think anyone has spotted my mental condition in all that time, because I take reponsibility for my editing and do not edit when I'm not up to it. If all the people with a mental illess or neurodivergence left Misplaced Pages it would be a much poorer place, and might not even exist. Some people with those conditions are very good editors, and some are not so good, just like "normal" people. I hope we can accept such people just as we can accept people of different genders, nationalities, sexual preferences etc. ] (]) 18:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are absolutely varying degrees of mental illness and it wasn’t my intention to imply anyone who suffers from a mental illness should not edit Misplaced Pages pages.
			::in this case, my comment was directed at one specific editor.
			::its unfortunate for sure, but some people simply aren’t capable of being objective and reasonable enough to edit pages.
			::this admin page is full of examples of users being blocked from editing because they simply aren’t able to handle the responsibility that comes with it. ] (]) 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Have I displayed any of that because you've kinda been urging me to stop being on the talk page for a while because of my extreme bias, which I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. This just seems like you found a more reasonable way to try and get me to stop editing. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@], rather than defending your comments on the article's talk page you should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I went back and looked through that entire discussion (about schizophrenia) and I see that there were 2 different editors besides me during the conversation.
			::::so I do apologize for conflating the two of you (Akechi and whoever the other editor was)
			::::I honestly did not realize Akechi was not the editor who volunteered they had a schizophrenia diagnosis. That’s for sure my mistake. Akechi, I apologize for implying you’d been diagnosed with a mental illness. ] (]) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Cool, do you also wanna apologise for the comments you made about severely mentally ill people, as well as just assuming I was because of my Autism. You could also just apologise generally to the user with schizophrenia they should see it, because honestly it's kind of disgusting to imply someone isn't competent because of their disabilities. ] (]) 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles.
			::::::Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 05:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::That is not you're decision to make and mental illnesses can vary in condition, we judge people's actions not how they were born. ] (]) 06:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Jwa05002, I know many people with schizophrenia who would be perfectly capable of writing Misplaced Pages articles. We block/ban people because of what they do on Misplaced Pages, not because of whether they happen to have a broken leg, cancer or schizophrenia. ] (]) 08:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Just stating one more time that I never agreed with this position. ] (]) 23:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yes, just in case anyone finds it meaningful I'll reaffirm my commitment to these principles as well. I specifically avoided "severe enough" language because I don't think any "overall amount" would be relevant. I spoke about impacts on specific, relevant domains. Someone can be dealing with crippling catatonic panic attacks or having outright hallucinations offline and also still be participating in Misplaced Pages constructively and valuably when they're up for it. All my evidence is that both have in fact happened in real cases, constructively and for the best. My primary principle here was that editors should not contribute where they are disruptively incompetent for any reason, with mental illness simply not a special reason (and similarly for forms of neurodivergence I don't actually like to conflate with flat "mental illness", such as many forms of autism spectrum conditions). ] (]) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I just came across this and i would like to say excuse my language what the fuck is this behavior. The correlations in the talk page are absolutely ridiculous and are all blatant attacks. I’m ignoring if akechi is right or wrong that doesn’t matter(to me). These attacks are not only focused on akechi but all neurodivergent contributors to Misplaced Pages. It’s disheartening that this happens. What does schizophrenia have to do with a users ability to edit. This place is for everyone who wants to contribute (within policy of course). those who degrade users because of who they are, they are trying to push people who they deem not to be “normal”. The fucking disrespect makes my blood boil. As someone who made a mistake which was directly related to my mental problems. If i was attacked for That behavior you bet I wouldn’t have held back my anger as much as akechi did. As a neurodivergent person and one who takes care of other neurodivergents. These people are more than helpful to the Misplaced Pages they all have certain content hyperfixations planes, military, cars, racing, boats you name it. Everyone has a purpose here. Shame on those who think otherwise ]] 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Also if you would like @] please explain why you think schizophrenia prohibits users from being competent.<br>In my experience with a schizophrenic friend most of his schizophrenia is just seeing scary things. He is smart he does well in school. Tell me why he couldn’t contribute ]] 19:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Block proposal - Jwa05002 ===
			{{atop|I have Indefinitely blocked Jwa05002 per consensus here. ]] 18:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I propose an indef block for Jwa05002 as consequence of their statements at ] where they wrote <blockquote>Agreed. @Akechi The Agent of Chaos self admittedly (in these discussions) suffers from schizophrenia. I have the deepest sympathy for anybody with mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean severely mentally ill people should be editing Misplaced Pages articles. It’s exactly as you stated, competence is required. But….i guess this is what Misplaced Pages has devolved into. It’s sad really"</blockquote> and then at ] where they just wrote <blockquote>I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles.
			Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles.</blockquote>
			All of the ], bar one which was an edit they shouldn't have been making per ], are at ] and ] and it therefore appears that the editor is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Not sure if I can place any votes because of my involvement but @] has in my opinion been trying to scare some user away from comment on ], including me where they said (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#c-Jwa05002-20250101224800-Akechi_The_Agent_Of_Chaos-20241230034200)
	As for edits to articles that are not de Bey-related, there are only a few:
			:"Based on this comment and many others I’ve seen you make here, you are far too personally biased (for whatever reason) to be making edits to this Misplaced Pages article. You are simply unable to be objective about it. Misplaced Pages should not exist as a forum for editors to grind their personal axes." in what could be seen as an attempt to scare me away from things. I don't know what Jwa was talking about because if you look at my comments on the talk page it was mostly trying to explain ] to people. The personal bias I can only assume was my disagreeing with them on the move request, as that is all I can think of. ] (]) 11:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	*. This one added King Phaze, also known as Jonathan Rivera, who in 2010 did a few edits to the King Phaze article as ].
			*'''Support''' as mover. I think Jwa's comments speak for themselves. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	*. This shows BB moving de Bey up in the list. An IP had earlier de Bey. The IP's are telling.
			*'''Support''' if clue is not promptly obtained. That's not an acceptable statement to make against your fellow editors. --] 14:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	*. This shows BB adding ], another of his deleted articles, to the list of associated acts.
			*'''Support''' This is entirely inappropriate and disruptive comportment. ] (]) 15:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Support''' per my comment above ]] 16:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Jwa's statement is unconscionably biased against editors with psychiatric issues, and such discrimination should not be tolerated. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	There are at least a few other named accounts that have been involved: ] whose only contributions have been deleted and hasn't edited since September 2010; ], whose only edits have been to de Lion (except one) and last edited on July 24, 2013. Poetry created the de Lion article and in its first iteration included de Bey, World Live Music, and King Phaze.
			*'''Support''' - ] is something that is, and should be, an immediate indefinite block ''at minimum''. ] is also something that is best responded to with a summary indef. I don't see any reason why Jwa is still unblocked while this ban discussion is ongoing. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 00:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - what ever happened to discussing ]? I'm with Jéské Couriano, why is Jwa still unblocked?--] 00:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strongly support''' - I'm still getting a weird feeling to the rest of the discussion unrelated to Jwa, but Jwa's interactions feel very clear cut, particularly considering they basically doubled down when they started discussing here at ANI. Feels like obvious grounds for a block and/or CBAN. - ] (]) 00:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Query''' is this proposing an ''indefinite block'' (as the section header says) or a '']'' (as the text says)? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Per ], {{tq|q=y|Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community".}} So wouldn't it be "both"? ] (]) 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@], I've updated the wording to specify an indef block. But as ER states above the result would be the same. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Query''' Should we let Jwa know that there is a indef block proposal, like on his talk page, it seems we haven't given him any heads up and I think we probably should. ] (]) 09:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	One thing that's important is many of the mentions of de Bey in the articles are either unsourced, or the provided sources do not support the material. For example, BB created ] in January 2013. Putting aside the incredibly promotional tone at the , it had the following sentence: "Her record company is also working close with record executive Sean Guerrier De Bey and Reug Vision for the purpose of marketing & promotions for future projects." The source was Boucian's own website. I don't know what it said back then, but currently it doesn't appear to say that, although the link is to the home page, and it might be buried somewhere. In the de Lion article, I today the mention of World Live Music as the blog source never mentioned it. Another editor the unsupported reference to de Bey.
			::I just left a message on his talk page just giving him a heads up. ] (]) 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You already let them know they were being discussed here at the very start of this conversation. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' unless they unequivocally recant this view, because at the end of the day competence is not decided just by what neurotype one is. I should note that if, as it currently seems, the user has left the project, this is going to be mostly an academic exercise.--] ] 10:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Yeah I did notice they just stop responding to anything, it seems they had a mission and just decided nope out I guess. ] (]) 10:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			==== Addition- policy revival and reform ====
	I could provide more evidence, but this is already ].
			] is a proposal that failed in 2009 and I have seen too much of this happening which just goes underwhelmingly to Wp:personal attacks. But these aren’t personal only the discrimination against one person is discrimination against the users of Misplaced Pages who were basically attacked. I think its needed as the everyday change of politics in the us. The draft will be remade of course. This is just my test the waters on potential proposals which I would like to make. ]] 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] would be the place for future policy proposals, but we already have precedent with treating discriminatory speech (aka misgendering and racial slurs) as ]. Users have been blocked on that basis over the last few years, wouldn't hurt to codify it. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	I propose an indefinite block of Billboarder22 for being here only to promote, and for doing so in a disruptive (often misleading and unsupported) manner.--] (]) 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
			::Yeah ]] 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::If you get the ball rolling at VPP I imagine you'd find a lot of people who would like to improve Misplaced Pages's systematic handling of discriminatory actions. ] (]) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I’ll start to draft a thing for village pump tonight thanks ]] 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::] Been working on this dis regard my horrible format its word vomit ]] 20:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:That is what made my blood boil with these interactions that they weren't just personal attacks but descrimination against a whole class of Misplaced Pages editors. I think policy here would be most welcome. Please ping me when you put up a proposal. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] Here ]] 16:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Talk page misuse (Jwa05002)===
	*'''Support''' Another example is this , in which BB adds ] to the list of notable ], alongside ], ], ], ] et al. There's more, but I'll follow ] lead and leave it at that; there's already ample reason to support an indefinite block of Billboarder22.] (]) 17:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC) .
	*{{done}} Anything else? ] (]) 23:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)		{{atop|Talk-page access yanked by Moneytrees. ] (]) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			says it all. Talk page access needs to be yanked.
	{{archive bottom}}
			It's sad though that they misread "<disorder> is characterized by <x, y, z, ...>" as "everyone with <disorder> has all of <x, y, z...> to the point that it makes them incompetent to edit". --] ] 04:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@], please see above comment by Jasper. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Use of Misplaced Pages Logo by SmartWay ===
			::Oh brother…. ]] 05:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	When I came across this section I had a look at " ", as linked above and was concerned that they are using the Misplaced Pages logo on a page promoting paid editing "standard page $499"(!) Surely this is a breach of the applicable terms of use of that logo? I had a look at ] and it seems that without permission they ''are'' breaching the Foundations trademark.©®™ ] ] <sup>]</sup> 01:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			{{abot}}
			==Extended confirmed gaming by Sairamb1407==
	:The Smartway page clearly conveys the impression that their service is in someway approved by the WMF. This issue is best referred to the Foundation's legal department. See ]. ] (]) 02:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::I have just sent an email to the email address listed at the contact us page. ]&#124;]&#124;] 02:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{Noping|Sairamb1407}} has made and many non substantial edits to other articles and have gamed their way into the extended confirmed user group. in order to edit the EC protected ] , consider revoking their ECR until they make 500 legitimate edits. - ] (]) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::FWIW, except for ]. all the pages listed in that advertisement as sample of their work have now been deleted, so it isn't a very effective advertisement any more. Still, this is an instance of misuse that would I think warrant action. ''']''' (]) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:I note that this editor made their 502nd edit to an extended confirmed protected article. ] (]) 09:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I have revoked their EC permission. ] (]) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Their talk page is full of warnings saying they may be blocked without further warning if they do some vandalism again. That user has only been here for a month... Just FYI. ] (]) 10:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I've blocked the user as a sock. The other account has a thread here as well (lower down).--] (]) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			=== User:Rahulbasuzoom not being here and potentially other issues ===
	== Vandalism at Satpal Maharaj ==
			{{atop|status=Sock blocks|1=Socks tossed in the dryer. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Reporting on {{Userlinks|Rahulbasuzoom}}. Almost their entire editing history consists of overlinking. They have been warned for this but still continue with this behavior even today by adding wikilinks to countries, words like "musician", more countries while making one edit per country, rivers where there's already a wikilink in the preceding sentence, the "British Empire" on a series that takes place in contemporary UK? etc.
			I think the user is trying to get to extended-confirmed status for Indian topics by gaming the system. Aside from the editing pattern, my suspicion is based on the fact that they made an edit request in that direction (if I accidentally got the wrong diff here, then the next diff should be the right one). When seeing that edit request, I also noticed another one on that talk page by {{Userlinks|Sairamb1407}} (who recently got their extended-confirmed status revoked for gaming the system). I had undone several cases of Rahulbasuzoom's overlinking, so I saw the history of some of the pages they edited and that's why Sairamb1407's username struck me as familiar because those two editors appear to have quite the overlap in editing interests and editing patterns, particularly on ] (where they made their edit requests) and the sub-channels of Republic TV. Examples: Republic Kannada, Republic Bangla, Republic Bharat. I suspect an undisclosed COI for both users, if not a case of meat puppetry or sock puppetry. Some of their edits have been removed for being puff pieces. (Sorry I didn't think of saving a diff for that and it's tricky to get one after I started writing this report, because I'm on mobile.)
			This is my first report, sorry if made any mistakes. ] (]) 21:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Here are examples of unsourced puff pieces added by Rahulbasuzoom for your convenience:. ] (]) 21:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Please have a look at ] and decide for yourself ] (]) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			::And here are diffs for Sairamb1407's adding of puff pieces to the same article: . ] (]) 21:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	* There seems to be some POV-pushing related to Prem Rawat topics. Small number of edits, not serious disruption. Warned user. ] (]) 12:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::thanks for taking action. Bito4u is again deleting content ] (]) 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)		*Both accounts are now blocked as socks of each other.--] (]) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::: I have semi-protected the article for three days and blocked users {{user|Bito4u}}, {{user|TeamAndrew}}, and {{user|VictorWong44}}, as their only activity here has been to remove sourced material from this one article. -- ] (]) 21:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			== Me (DragonofBatley) ==
	== Bad faith editing and BLP vios by Kaylatiger23 at Julia Mora ==
			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)
	{{archive top|1=Indef blocked and RD2'd by Ponyo. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 11:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)}}
			:Notifying other editors from the wider discussions {{Ping|PamD}}, {{Ping|Noswall59}}, {{Ping|Rupples}}, {{Ping|Crouch, Swale}}, {{Ping|KeithD}}, {{Ping|SchroCat}}, {{Ping|Tryptofish}}, {{Ping|Cremastra}} and {{Ping|Voice of Clam}}. If I missed anyone else sorry ] (]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{la|Julia Mora}}
			:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{userlinks|Kaylatiger23}}
			::Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of ], ], ] and now redirected ] and ]. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. ] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. ] (]) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
			:I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
			:I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
			:Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --] (]) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? ] (]/]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? ] (]) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::These are good points.
			:::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). {{u|KJP1}} provided a for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they ''understand'' source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. ]&nbsp;] 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements ''and'' that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::That's a great point, you're right, @]. ]&nbsp;] 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I responded to @] earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with ] ] and ]. Also conflict edit was not directed at @], there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. ] (]) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
			*:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
			The issues are ] and source integrity; ]; and the suggestion of ] while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.
			Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, ], which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises ] issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.
	User has repeatedly edited this biography, attempting to insert a badly sourced DOB. It looks like one of those off-Wiki imported "I don't like it" disputes. The subsequent edit warring resulted in them calling other editors "homeless bum" and the subject a "homeless prostitute". Reported to OTRS by whom I assume is the subject's agent ]. Not sure if there is a block forthcoming but at the very least there's a lot of revdel needed to eliminate the user's insulting edit summaries. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I blocked the account indefinitely for repeated BLP violations, which appears to be the sole purpose of the account. In order to prevent Kaylatiger23 from repeating the contentious material and attacks on their talk page, I have blocked without talk page access and pointed them to ]. I'll start combing through their edits now and see which of them require revision deletion. The OTRS ticket noted a few, but there are certainly more based on a quick review of the contribs. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	===Possible sockpuppet===
	{{userlinks|Treasure89}}
			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)
	Treasure89 added the same info, with the same edit summary.
			: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)
	Sockpuppet indicator: birthyear of Treasure(19)89 + age of (Kaylatiger)23 = 2012. Apparently Kayla/Treasure is born late 1989.
			This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. ] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'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)
	] (]) 18:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in ], ] and ]. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@]. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. ] (]) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@], the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. ] (]/]) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::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.
	== IP editor repeatedly vandalizing Misplaced Pages ==
			: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.
	{{archive top|1=Only one edit today, the first in five days, so hardly "repeatedly vandalizing". If they cause further disruption please take to ]. ]] 16:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)}}
	IP editor at 204.100.210.172 has a history of vandalizing and blanking articles since 27-August. Recommend a temporary block to prevent further vandalism.] (]) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I him/her at ]. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 16:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			: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.
	== previously sanctioned user returning to edit under a new name ==
			: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)
	I have previously posted some of the details of his case as part of an SPI request linking this user to another account, but was instructed by an administrator (]) that this is actually an issue for ANI, rather than SPI, so I am listing it here, as well.
			::Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? ] (]/]) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Back in October 2010, while an ANI involving ] (and which resulted in an interaction ban on her and another user) was on-going, that user decided to leave wikipedia for good, and announced it in a "departure tirade", involving personal attacks. (see ]) Those personal attacks resulted in a 1 month block, with the blocking admin stating "Factomancer, I'm taking you as your word, and that you have left for good.", and that if she returns, an indef topic ban from I/P article may be needed (Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Factomancer&diff=prev&oldid=393217316)
			:::I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —] (]) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
			(I wasn't pinged here, but I had been at ].) DragonofBatley has been at this noticeboard before, in a section they started in May 2023, ]. {{U|PamD}} stated there that they became aware of DragonofBatley's edits in 2021 and had since been checking and fixing them and trying to advise DragonofBatley. It emerged that others had been trying to advise and assist them, in particular {{U|Crouch, Swale}}. There was further discussion at their talk page (including overly verbose advice from me, I was trying to be clear) and the editor mulling whether to leave. (). I gather that they did not leave, but that their editing has continued to be poor and the number of editors noticing this, trying to help, and discussing the problem has increased further. It pains me to say so, but I think at this point ] has to be seriously considered. DragonofBatley's editing presents a number of problems that are taking up a lot of editorial time to fix resulting damage to the encyclopaedia. (Points that follow in descending order of importance to me.)
	This user eventually returned as ], and continues to edit in the I/P topic area (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Eptified&dir=prev&offset=20120805032454&target=Eptified). Is this appropriate? ] (]) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			* Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: '] is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with : he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here.
	:*{{userlinks|Sisoo vesimhu}}
			* 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.)
	:Before this inquiry goes much farther, I'd like to ask Sisoo vesimhu to comment on the checkuser finding that he is the same editor as {{userlinks|GoGoTob2}}. The propriety of an editor using two separate accounts to edit the ARBPIA space can be questioned. I'm notifying ] that his finding was mentioned here. ] (]) 18:10, 16 September 2013 (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.)
	::I edit from within a fairly large company, and it would not surprise me if there are others at our company editing Misplaced Pages with the same IP. I agree that the propriety of an editor using two separate accounts to edit the ARBPIA space can be questioned - this is exactly what I was doing in the SPI report I mentioned above - pointing out that ] is editing the same topic area under ]. Surprisingly, I was told by ] that this would not be sock puppetry. Let's try to have some consistent standards, please. ] (]) 18:22, 16 September 2013 (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.
			There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note {{U|Liz}} has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that ] instance (at the end of , which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. ] (]) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Does your company have a code of conduct that requires honesty and integrity from its employees ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			:All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{od}}It is not true that Eptifed "continues to edit in the I/P topic area"; the last relevant edit I can find was last October. And the sockpuppet report that Sisoo vesimhu refers to did not even mention Eptifed until a couple of hours ago, when Sisoo added a comment asserting, with no diffs or evidence, that this was the same editor is the two under investigation in the SPI report. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 20:23, 16 September 2013 (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)
	:The above is false. The SPI I referred too included this link - http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Factomancer&user2=Eptified&user3=Sepsis+II - which not only mentions Eptified in the URL, but shows an overlap between that account an the other 2 socks, an overlap of 7 articles. It's no great mystery that the Factomancer account is the same as Eptified, as that information is given clearly, both and . Perhaps naively, I assumed users actually look at the evidence, and did not need to be spoon-fed, but after being corrected on this point by ] (who , BTW, wrote to me an e-mail saying 'Eptified has openly stated they are the same user as Factomancer.' - so obviously that point was not lost on those who were actually looking at the report and evidence), I added some clarifications to the SPI to make it explicit even for the likes of ] ] (]) 21:54, 16 September 2013 (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).
	::Hang on, you're complaining about an account who's last obvious edit to the I/P area is in 2012?! Seriously? Wow... <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:11, 16 September 2013 (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: ].
			::I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.
			::Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for ], which is also the example of a lead in ], starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{tl|cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.
			::Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.
			::The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, ] (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).
			::It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.
			::Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. ]] 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposed editing restriction/cleanup work ===
	May I note that, {{user|Sisoo vesimhu}} was editing under a CU blocked sticky dynamic IP (this means that it's basically static for long period of time). I have contacted the blocking CheckUser to take a look at this thread. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b></span> <sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 13:54, 17 September 2013 (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)
	:Upon closer examination. There appears to be some relation between Sisoo vesimhu and {{user|NoCal100}}. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b></span> <sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 13:59, 17 September 2013 (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}}
			{{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)
			== Stalking from @Iruka13 ==
	== Help needed against a disruptive editor ==
			*{{userlinks|Iruka13}}
			This is a continuation of various discussions happening on the Talk page of the user ].
			I have been feeling harassed and stalked by this user for months now, figuring it was only me. Except, as is evidenced from that user's talk page, it ISN'T only me. As well as ], @] has laid out their own harassment. Bear in mind both of our posts come AFTER the user was already banned for a week by @] for incivility to a different person entirely. I don't believe it's only us.
	{{user|Saladin1987}}, a disruptive POV-pushing edit-warrior, appears to be a single purpose account used by a Pakistani from the Sydney area of Australia who is constantly changing famous people's ethnicity. In particular, he is changing ] to ] even when the sources say Pashtun people. He doesn't use talk pages of articles but instead tells me on my talk page his personal views, theories and speculations. He is very much determined to change the correctly sourced "Pathan" to Punjabi in ]. Mr. Kapoor proudly identified himself as "Pathan" to everyone and spoke Pashto (the native language of Pathans), and all of this is well sourced. In addition, Mr. Kapoor had pure Pathan physical features and even named one of his first plays "Pathan" so that obviously shows how much his ethnicity meant to him, but Saladin1987 prefers to make him a Punjabi. I think Saladin1987's edits are motivated by ethnocentrism. Btw, he was warned recently and it appears that he decided to use IPs. There may be some kind of sock puppeting going on, he's always active but doesn't edit much, which suggests that he may be using another account.--] (]) 20:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			As laid out: one of my photos was tagged by @] for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file. Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons. The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead it's a drip-drip-drip. As an example, was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
	If you look at his work history he is the one who has removed my sources and placed his but even then i didnt change the article but to him his sources are correct but he keeps on winging about pathan thing but where did my sources go, all have been deleted or are still there but he just pushed his opinions oveer there. There is no need to mention about the ethnicity when its completey disputed, He states facts like he did play pathan but he acted in many punjabi movies not in pashto movies, he spoke hindko and even his frends from the place confirm that but he romved those sources also his children identify themselves as punjabi so maybe an English can give birth to a german , then i will accept it. Also about the features to have fair skin doesnt mean he is pathan, i can show you many dark skinned pashtuns so they are not pashtuns, I just want to request that if you can remove the ethnicity in this article and then everything will be resolved,What he does is comes and posts ethnicity in the articles, he doesnt contribute positively just contributes in the ethnicity categorySaladin1987 07:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::You add unreliable and irrelevant sources so they must to be removed. Not only me but others also revert your edits. Those sources that you try to add are talking about this subject's "grandchildren" and they do not mention anything about ethnicity. On the other hand, at ], this subject's son makes it very clear to us that Prithviraj Kapoor was Pathan by ethnicity. Where Prithviraj was born or in which country's movies he appeared in has nothing to do with his ethnicity. In Bollywood, Muslim actors pretend to be Hindus but that doesn't mean anything because movies are fake.--] (]) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:{{lu|Saladin1987}} previously blocked and . N.B. I've not evaluated the Pashtun/Punjabi sources. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 11:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Trevj, I had started a discussion at ] where his son ] orally states "my parents belonged to Peshawar, they were born there then they entered Bombay... we all belong to a community called the Hindu Pathan... Muslim Pathan". You can listen to his voice for yourself . Another RS states: "Kapoor, a Hindu Pashtun, made it" and clearly describes him as Pathan. Bwt, ] and ] are synonymous terms and they both redirect to each other. On the other hand, pov-pushing Saladin1987 is rejecting all of these sources and relying on his personal analysis, this is not allowed in Misplaced Pages, and Saladin1987 is purposly disrupting and wasting our time here. He has now indicated on my talk that after his this account gets blocked, his friends in Pakistan will start reverting to keep his version. I think blocking him is justified and anyone who reverts to his version should get it too because these guys are here for causing disruption.--] (]) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream of harassment. They never engage civilly, never explain, never offer any reasoning. Again, from the other comments on the user's Talk page, this practice of stalking, bullying, and condescension is seemingly not a one-off. I don't understand how there can be so much drama on a single six-week period of one person's Talk page. Especially when, apparently, the user has already been banned from Commons for similar destructive behaviour. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	the thing is that there is a lot of mention regarding his ethnicity and as i know the surname is kapoor and his grandchildren have already approved that they are punjabi just he had a pathan mindset , its like me saying durani living in punjab are punjabis but no worries i really dont wanto to continue this conversation , i would appreciate if this ethnicity term is removed and so that all the people who consider him as punjabi and the ones who consider him as pathan (Pashtun n pathan is not synonymous)(like every khan is not pathan in the same manner,,khans were mongolian but to fareed30 khan is pathan or pashtun).
	So i would appreciate if you could just remove these terms and i really woudl appreciate it and so as many people who know that he is punjabi just like pakistanis in britian call themselves british doesnt make them britishSaladin1987 07:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Of course Pakistanis living in Britain are British; no need to repeat EDL propaganda here! <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 07:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:Just dropping a link to my discussion with Iruka . My block was less about whether they were technically correct, but their complete unwillingness and inability to edit in a collaborative environment despite a multitude of warnings. I have not followed up with further sanctions as at least one admin disagreed, and I haven't had the on wiki time to moderate this. My POV there and here is that being right isn't sufficient, and Iruka13 has to learn to play well with others if he's going to edit here. I am not sure whether this is a language barrier, but they've been told a number of times that their conduct is problematic. ] ] 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Persistent disruptions from an editor with multiple IPs ==
			::I'm also going to add from what I've seen at the deletion discussions (they've not targeted any of mine; I exclusively deal in copyleft media on Commons) that Iruka13 is frequently and obviously meritless in their nominations. A huge portion of them are very obviously spurious in a way that's comparable to ] and ], where the amount of energy required to nominate them is immensely lower than the amount required to refute them. I'm genuinely baffled that they've been getting away with this. If they were basically always correct and just being – pardon my French – an insufferable jackass about it, that would be one thing. It's another thing entirely, though, to take a birdshot approach to deletion noms knowing there will be zero repurcussions for whichever spuriously nominated ones survive the discussion because ]. It's literally just a technique aimed at exhausting the other party, and this bizarre edge case they're creating has made me think that we might actually need some sort of limit on the number of noms possible in a given time period. <b>]</b> ] 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Can you provide the redlink to the "talk page of a deleted file" where you said that the harassment "largely" occurred? Administrators can view the content of a deleted page. :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'd love to - but I don't know how to find a page that was deleted so long ago. I think it would have been around October 2024? Is there a way I can search this out? ] (]) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I am reproducing the comment from ] here:{{tq2|Do you even know what is ] and what is not? Where in ] is this distinction mentioned? Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and ]? And ], ok? — Ирука<sup>13</sup> 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes! That's the comment. The "demolish everything you wrote" bit.
			::::The same user has now been following me around for months. This is exactly the reason other users like @] feel unsafe. How is this allowed to go on? ] (]) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That conduct probably would have merited a temporary block in November, but I'm not going to block him based on that now without more evidence that it's part of a pattern. Regarding {{tq|the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons}}, could you please provide diffs (perhaps to talk page notices that you got) of spurious deletion nominations? ] (]/]) 03:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It's the process of one after the other, after the other.
			::::::If there were genuine issues with images, why didn't Iruka tag them all back then? Instead, it's been a drip-drip-drip all the way up until today. This is why I feel harassed. The tagging isn't on new images.
			::::::As an example, was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
			::::::If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream. ] (]) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::My understanding is that stuff like that lead to Star Missicipi's 1 week block on the 10th of December. Has there been any conduct made you feel uncomfortable since their block expired, beyond nominating your images for deletion (indicating they might be watching which images you make) and them being deleted? :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Jinx voorts, beat me too it! Had an edit conflict there (but forgot to add {{ec}})! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Hi. Yes. was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.
			::::::If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream.
			::::::Basically, why would they suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months, on a whim? ] (]) 03:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::My guess would be that the user was looking through your file creations (which is not sanctionable conduct by itself) as they had found you to be, in their opinion, a creator of fair use files that may not meet our guidelines for free-use content and was seeing if there were any others to tag for deletion. If you don't agree with decision of the admin who chose to accept the CSD nom and delete the file, you can submit an appeal to ]. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be done here? Has there been any re-occurance of subpar communication like the above since the 17th of December? ] <sup>]]</sup> 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::But that's exactly my point. All those files were already on Misplaced Pages at that previous time. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged in one go.
			::::::::Instead, it's tag a file, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another. And repeat.
			::::::::But why would anyone keep returning to those old images, from a single user, over and over and over?
			::::::::That's why I feel harassed. Especially because - as with the image linked above - I don't believe there's an issue.
			::::::::Plus, as pointed out by @], tahere have been more than 150 image deletion nominations in the last two weeks alone. ] (]) 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Three* but nonetheless correct. <b>]</b> ] 04:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)e
			::::{{U|Voorts}}, you just beat me to it--thanks. But let me add that Peterson doesn't look good either. What Iruka was responding to was this, " There's no point in people drive-bying these pages with that "needs image" tag if, when somebody tries to do something about it, a person *with zero knowledge of the subject matter* doesn't bother to do any reading before rejecting. This whole process is ridiculous." ] (]) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::: I've undeleted that file talk page so non-admin watchers can see the whole exchange in context. ] ] 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm reading over a bunch of material, including their talk page. It's clear to me (and I think ] agrees) that many of their deletion nominations are correct. On the other hand, the way in which they go about things is deemed problematic by plenty of others, and I wonder if ], ], ], and ] have any additional insight. ] (]) 03:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Yeah, that matched my understanding, including them being usually (but by no means always) right on the merits but problematic in how they went about it. I don't really have the energy to spent more time analyzing this than I already have - the other admins watching this page can do what needs to be done and I don't think any further comments from me would be helpful. ] ] 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Their nomination of ] was not correct. The file had a nominally large pixel size, but was very compressed. When I removed their tag for the image to be shrunk, they nominated it for speedy deletion, which makes no sense and is clearly retaliatory. They tagged it as being an entire work uploaded when an excerpt would do, when they knew it was a single compressed frame from a 44 minute film. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I wouldn't say that their tagging of the file for speedy deletion was totally incorrect and made no sense given the size of the original file that was uploaded; the close to ] and the ] of the {{tlx|Non-free no reduce}} template ] to the file's page and ] of the the {{tlx|Non-free reduce}} template originally added by Iruka13. For reference, {{u|Voorts}}, who's an administrator, did !vote delete in the FFD, but for a different reason; the file ultimately was kept, but it was reduced. You disagreed with the tagging of the file for reduction by Iruka13 but, for some reason, don't seem to have an issue with the closing administrator who did exactly the same thing. -- ] (]) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I forgot about that discussion. I don't think it makes me involved here, but I'm not planning on taking action at this point anyways. If any evidence of a continuing problem had been presented, as I've asked numerous times, I would have blocked, but the allegations of stalking are based on very thin evidence. ] (]/]) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@], you don’t know what I don’t have an issue with. I still think there was no reason for the bot reduction of the file. The relevance of the reduction tagging is in the fact that “this file should be kept and altered” cannot lead to “this file should be deleted” without some major change in opinion, which Iruka never explained—hence my belief that it was just a lashing-out, as I believe is evidenced by the fact that their tag alleging that the file interferes with the market role of the original work and that the still is a complete work from which an excerpt could be taken instead was completely false and never explained—''still'' never explained, actually. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Four of your uploads (the one discussed above, ], ] and ]) were all uploaded at sizes considered big enough to be tagged by a bot for reduction almost within a day of being uploaded. The file discussed here was tagged by a bot ], but you removed the tag ] and added a "Non-free no reduce" template ]; perhaps you thought that resolved things. Iruka13 removed the "Non-free free no reduce" template ], and you re-added it ]. I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again and led to accusations of edit warring. The file was tagged for speedy deletion per ] and ], each of which are reasons related to ]. You then started the discussion about the file, first on its talk page and then at FFD, and Iruka did respond on both pages. None of the above seems to seems (at least to me) to clearly indicate any type of retaliaton against you by Iruka13; rather, it seems like something not too uncommon when it comes to disagreements over non-free files, and it also seems to have been resolved as such. If you can demonstrate that Iruka13 did similar things with respect to your other file uploads or uploads by others, then that might indicate a pattern of some kind; their interaction with you, however, seems to have been civil and seems to have ended with the FFD. Finally, the "Criterion 3b, because an entire work is being used when a portion or a reduced-size copy would suffice" used in the {{tlx|di-fails NFCC}} template is boilerplate text added when a template's {{para|3b}} parameter is set as {{para|3b|yes}}; so, that's the default option when using that template. Personally, I might've just skipped that template and gone to FFD instead, but different strokes for different folks, and, once again, I don't see tagging the file for speedy deletion as being a retaliatory act. Iruka13 can't delete files and any files they tag for speedy deletion are going to be ultimately reviewed by an administrator, and it's possible that the file would've ended up at FFD based on that review. If you've got issues with the bot tagging the file for reduction, the bot operator is probably the best person to express them to. Similarly, if you feel the FFD close was incorrect, you can follow ]. -- ] (]) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::> I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again
			::::::And therein lies the point because you shouldn’t have to guess. Iruka could actually engage with editors on a polite, peer-to-peer, basis.
			::::::Instead, there is no engagement. It’s tag, move on; tag, move on - dozens of times a day, every day. And should anyone dare engage, they get wikilawyered, or threats such as:
			::::::> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
			::::::All from a user who, by their own admission, has multiple bans for harassment. Which is, at least from my standing, why I and others feel bullied and harassed. After all it is someone who’ll openly tell you that’s how they behave, knowing full well they get welcomed back to do it again. ] (]) 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::You cannot nominate a file for deletion because you think your tag is going to be removed. That is not a deletion rationale. I don’t care about establishing a pattern of behavior for this user—I’m just saying that they tagged a file for deletion because they got annoyed that their NFR tag got reverted, and that is a problem. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 02:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You can, however, nominate or tag a non-free file for deletion if you feel it fails to meet <s>all</s><u>one</u> of the ten non-free content use criteria. Iruka13 listed two criteria that they felt the non-free use failed; you disagreed with their assessment and the file ended up being discussed at FFD. That's a fairly common occurrence when it comes to disagreements over non-free use, and doesn't necessarily mean anyone was annoyed or trying to retaliate. The fact that the non-free file was kept but also reduced, also doesn't mean they were totally incorrect in their assessment, at least with respect to NFCC#3b. You posted above that I {{tq|don't know what you have an issue with}}, yet you're quick to assume that Iruka13's tagging of the file just had to be done to get back at you. -- ] (]) 03:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)<ins>; <small>post edited. -- 03:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</small></ins>
			:@] & @]: If I am going to take action, I need to see a post-block pattern of conduct. Please provide some form of evidence, such as diffs. ] (]/]) 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::My most recent issues relate to the file I linked above - . This was tagged last week and deleted today.
			::Again, if the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's the fifth or sixth(?) that's been tagged and deleted since that first one. Each a week or three apart.
			::Of course I feel stalked. None of these images are new. They could've all been tagged at the time.
			::Instead, it's drip-drip-drip.
			::On that one linked above, why would Iruka suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months on a whim? Unless it's because they're stalking. It's the same behaviour described by @] ] (]) 04:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The instructions at the top of this page state: {{tq|Be brief and include ''']''' demonstrating the problem}} (emphasis in original). I am not going to block someone without evidence. ] (]/]) 04:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::There's no way I could possibly fulfil what you ask.
			::::The point is that instead of tagging multiple files for deletion in one go, the same user has tagged image files of mine one after the other. Tag for deletion, wait 2-3 weeks, tag, wait 2-3 weeks, tag.
			::::I can't see the files *because they've been deleted*. What am I supposed to link you to?
			::::Even if all the deletions were correct - and I'm not convinced that's true - how is this a legitimate way to act?
			::::The harassment is that all these files were live when the first tag was made. Instead of highlighting any issues at the time, Iruka has been following me around the site for months. I'm not the only person saying this. ] (]) 04:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looking at your talk page history, you received two deletion notifications on 12 November 2024 (one for an image that you uploaded that same date, and one for an image that you uploaded a few weeks prior), one on 22 November 2024 for the image you uploaded 12 November, one on 3 December 2024 for an image you uploaded in October, and one on 6 January for an image you uploaded in October.{{pb}}The 22 November nomination makes sense in context because it was originally nominated for lacking an adequate license per F4 on 12 November, which was remedied, and then Iruka came back ten days later to nominate it for lacking contextual significance. That leaves the nominations on 3 December and 6 January. Two nominations one month apart is not adequate evidence of stalking, in my opinion. ] (]/]) 04:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I also note your responses to two of those notifications (both for files that were deleted):
			::::::* ]
			::::::* ]
			:::::: ] (]/]) 04:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::OK @] & @]- I think I have been able to find some sort of timeline to illustrate what I'm saying.
			:::::::On 12 Nov, ] was nominated for deletion. I'd uploaded in the days before, so OK. Fair enough. I'm still not convinced by the merits of this deletion in regards to the point of the page and the image - but OK.
			:::::::On 22 Nov, ] was nominated.
			:::::::On 3 Dec ] was nominated.
			:::::::On 6 Jan ] was nominated. This is the most dubious of all.
			:::::::These four images were all there at the time of the first nomination. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.
			:::::::Instead, it's four over two months - which comes directly after the message:
			:::::::> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
			:::::::Which is exactly what's happening. Spaced out, spurious nominations.
			:::::::Why would a user suddenly return to look at a different user's work, weeks apart, unless they're stalking?
			:::::::And, if it was only me, then maybe I'd put it down to paranoia. Except the user's Talk page has at least one other user saying a very similar thing.
			:::::::I can't see the comments you've linked to btw - but believe it or not, when someone says
			:::::::> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote
			:::::::and then starts doing it, it does tend to lead to incivility. ] (]) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Just to add, by the user's own admission in 2023, they have
			::::::::> 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects
			::::::::Link: ]
			::::::::That's in *their own words*. ] (]) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::{{tq|If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.}} There's no rule that requires an editor to go through another editor's contributions and decide whether to nominate them for deletion all at once. There are also innocent explanations, such as not wanting to overwhelm someone with a dozen nominations all at once or not having the time.{{pb}}Regarding Netherzone's claim of stalking, Iruka's "]" appears to be a place where they keep notes on files they intend to renominate for deletion at a later date.{{pb}}I am also well aware of the history of Iruka's blocks, but blocks can't be used to punish people for sins of the past. I see no evidence of stalking here and I won't be taking action. ] (]/]) 05:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::OK, so when another old file gets tagged with little justification in 2-3 weeks, can I message you again? What about 2-3 weeks after that?
			:::::::::I don't even know how I'm supposed to appeal / counteract the tag-tag-tag behaviour. I can't see any justification for the deletion of today's file and it's not as if Iruka ever gives any reason. ] (]) 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{outdent|6}} Iruka has provided reasons consistent with policies, guidelines, and practice. For example, ] was tagged with <nowiki>{{di-fails NFCC|date=6 January 2025|1=yes|8=yes}}</nowiki>. I've reviewed the fair use rationale that you provided and I believe that the file was properly deleted. ] (]/]) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Does 170 image deletion noms since Christmas count as "a pattern of conduct"? Because I see this as effectively a ] where it's functionally impossible for most editors to meaningfully evaluate the merits of each one. Since non-free media has to meet a substantially higher standard for 'Keep' than for 'Delete', this means that 'Keep' voters need to take substantially more time per nom than the 'Delete' ones, and creating such a glut of noms severely and unfairly tips the balance in favor of a 'Delete' vote on average. <b>]</b> ] 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Please provide diffs. ] (]/]) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Appreciate the ask, because this made me realize that I was incorrect about the original figure. It's actually 210 since Christmas, or a bit over 10 per day. and then Ctrl+F "up for deletion" and "tagging for deletion". 170 noms; 40 CSDs. I want to clarify I've been absent from this since the original block, but this has to be absurd to keep up with for anyone at the discussions trying to argue to in good faith to preserve these images. <b>]</b> ] 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::How many were declined by patrolling admins? How many were no permission tags where permissions were then added? An admin cannot block someone without evidence and I'm not going to dig through Iruka's contributions to look for it. ] (]/]) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Ultimately I haven't been keeping up with the situation on a per-nom basis, and by nature of them consistently putting up over 1000 edits a month, I'm not going to be going through them except for macro-scale patterns. I was brought here for my perspective, and this is it: that Iruka is abusing the system by making an unprecedented amount of noms with little regard for merit (the noms I witnessed were immediately pre-block, thus as you said not qualifying here for post-block behavior) in order to make dubious noms on average more successful solely because they can't have as much individual time dedicated to them. It's a very obvious tactic, and I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. I don't intend to go beyond what I was brought here to do for right now. <b>]</b> ] 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq|It's a very obvious tactic, I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it.}} Please do comment on other editors' motives without evidence. ] (]/]) 04:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Between more than one experienced editor accusing Iruka of stalking them, their "let someone else sort it out" attitude toward obvious, consequential mistakes they make, their argumentative behavior, their gross power-tripping attitude ("Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right?" (also note the wikilawyering going on in that comment)), their ridiculous noms (including arguments like "just use a 3D model bro" or "a free alternative can reasonably exist because you can just get a basketball backboard and break it for an image bro" or "just offer to pay them money to put it under a free license it bro"; all pre-block, so I'm not bothering to dig it up), the absurd frequency of noms they create, and their indefinite block on Commons, all I'll say is that I assume good faith until an editor flushes that down the toilet. With that, I'm done here unless someone has a specific question for me. <b>]</b> ] 04:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::"I have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects."
			:::::::::Kinda sounds like maybe this user does harass people, considering that's what they wrote *on their own page*.
			:::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100 ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The stuff in this thread is basically ''de rigueur'' for this user: my past experiences with Iruka13 and file deletion have consisted of extremely bizarre wikilawyering, to the point where I felt like it bordered on deliberate trolling. I do not understand why this editor is permitted to waste so much of people's time with obviously vexatious nominations. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I think the key element here is if the nominations were "obviously vexatious", I mean the ones that sparked this ANI were all accepted by the deleting admin, and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama. I wonder if there's a tool on toolforge or smth to calculate accepted vs denied CSDs/FfD noms which may paint a better picture, but from a spot check I just did of both CSD and FfD this are mostly either accepted by the deleting admin or the raised issues are resolved. ] <sup>]]</sup> 07:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::To my understanding this ANI is mainly about a) the volume of CSDs and FfDs and b) the user's laboratory. I don't think anyone is arguing that the nominations were actually meritless or vexatious, and those who said they were "wrong" may want to take that up with the deleting admin or ] because it's not like this user is mass-tagging and it's being declined... most of the time issues are resolved or the admin agrees and speedily deletes/the FfD closes as delete. ] <sup>]]</sup> 07:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::> and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama
			:::You’ve guessed that this is their motivation - and your guess is equally as valid as my assertion that this is stalking.
			:::In fact, much of various admins’ attempts at justification throughout this thread is guesswork - all of which has had to occur because Iruka does not engage with other users on a polite peer-to-peer basis. There is no “paper trail” to say “this is what they actually meant”. As has been evidenced and pointed out by multiple editors. ] (]) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If you continue to assert this is stalking with no evidence, I will block you for personal attacks. ] (]/]) 13:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Ok, I will simply ask you how do you know tags
			:::::> were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama
			:::::Have you guessed? Or has Iruka stated this anywhere? ] (]) 13:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::All of the files that he tagged that you uploaded were deleted. There is no rule that prohibits someone from nominating files for deletion spaced apart. At this point, it just feels like you're seeking revenge for that. ] (]/]) 14:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You're guessing my intention the same way you're guessing Iruka's.
			:::::::"Revenge" isn't my intention at all. Revenge for what? If the files were legitimately deleted, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to me.
			:::::::However, the spacing of the reports felt - and feel - like harassment. (I'm being clear that it *felt* like harassment because I don't want to be banned for what you assert are personal attacks).
			:::::::Even with that *feeling*, I would have moved on were it not for the fact that other people were reporting very similar things on the user's Talk page. And then, with a small amount of checking, it seems that Iruka has admitted to harassing other users at various points in the past. And, from what others have said, Iruka has already been banned on multiple occasions, from multiple places, for precisely that. (I don't actually know if this is true).
			:::::::So my *feeling* of being harassed was in fact legitimised by others feeling the same - and apparent past behaviour. Hence this.
			:::::::On the files being deleted, for that specific one ], it was the first time I'd experienced this sort of tagging. I didn't really know what to do with it.
			:::::::The info page said to leave an explanation on the Talk page - which I tried to do.
			:::::::I was then told:
			:::::::> I can demolish everything you wrote
			:::::::along with what I now know is 'wikilawyering'. You can see how I reacted:
			:::::::> Who goes onto a page and says "I can demolish everything you wrote" and then cries about bad faith?!
			:::::::Because from the info page, I assumed that when an admin came to look at that file to decide upon deletion, they would see that remark and do something with it. I didn't even know this ANI process existed then.
			:::::::Except nothing was done. The admin either read Iruka's "demolish" response and decided it was acceptable, or didn't read it.
			:::::::And, ever since then, Iruka has continued to target me at regular intervals, leaving me unsure what - if anything - to do.
			:::::::You can guess that the targeting is to "prevent looks of batch deleting" - but it's still a guess. Iruka could've engaged civilly, in the same way they could with any other user who has reported a problem.
			:::::::In the same way they could be on this thread right now explaining what's actually going on. If they did that, neither you or I would have to guess. ] (]) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			Please forgive the length of this. This discussion has gone a bit sideways, the issue is '''''not''''' whether Iruka13 is “correct” or not in their file tagging and file deletions, the problem is that <u>''their behavior is disturbing and upsetting a number of experienced, good-faith editors''</u>, myself included.
	* {{userlinks|198.189.184.243}}
	* {{userlinks|71.202.210.61}}
	* {{userlinks|24.130.19.195}}
			It is precisely the same conduct that got them blocked on Commons, Russian WP and Ukranian WP. Stalking may not be the right term for the behavior but I do believe there is deliberate harassment conducted by the editor. Misplaced Pages itself defines harassment as {{tq|Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.}} That is clearly the effect their behavior has had with multiple ediors.
	From a glance at their contributions it should be clear these IPs are from the same person, but examples of explicit connections are tying the first and the second, and tying the first and the third. Geographical location also confirms it.
			Here is a synopsis of my interactions with this user and why I feel I have been harassed and made to feel upset and frightened to the point that I’ve virtually stopped editing.
	The first IP is currently blocked for the second time for warring at ]. This is independent of ] of warring at ] which did not result in a block. Instead, a ] was issued and the Sheldrake article was protected. I'm not sure why a block didn't happen in this case since it occured not long after the first block for warring at ].
			1. I uploaded ''']'''. After uploading I realized the size was too large for fair-use, and made a note of my error on the file talk page (I was unable to reduce it because I did not have access to Photoshop at the time). BTW, Zuni fetishes are ceremonial objects made by the Zuni tribe of Native Americans that are also sold as small sculptures; they have nothing to do with the sexualized notion of "fetish".
	In any case since the first IP is currently on a 72 hour block, admins may view that as sufficient. I wanted to bring attention to the other IPs and the possibly unnoticed warring at Sheldrake (due to the non-block), if such circumstances warrant further action. ] (]) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			2. I received message about the file on my user talk. Diff: to which I responded and answered on the file talk page.
	== ] and ] ==
			3. The discussion then resumed at the File talk page about the deletion nomination. Diff: where I explained my rationale for fair use. The editor then responded with: {{tq| judging by the response you didn't look at them; right?}}, which I thought was rather rude to assume I don't read messages (which explains my response on my user talk page).
	{{archivetop|Closing up shop. Medeis blocked 24hrs for edit warring with a reminder that general mud-flinging of racism accusations is not tolerated and will be dealt with accordingly. ] (]) 09:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)}}
	During the ], I posted an "Oppose" - at the time, the death toll was four. It has since been revised upwards to twelve (and I have struck my comment, as this is clearly not a commonplace workplace shooting, which it appeared to be at the time).
			4. They then went on the argue with me in a mocking tone: {{tq|But it is so. wow, your contribution is bigger than mine, it's not for me to tell you about it}} and {{tq|wow_2, who am I telling this to?}}. I told them that their response did not seem very nice. They responded: {{tq|What I was trying to say is that what I'm saying, you already know. You know better than me. / uploading this image boggles my mind.}} I think it was around this time that Star Mississippi warned the editor on their talk page.
	Despite this, ] has made more than one comment accusing myself and other editors of racism. After I struck their original comment as a clear RPA, they have again posted, saying "I said the comments were racist, not that editors were racist", but then followed by "If we have a better term than racist for this I would be happy to hear it". This is utterly unacceptable. I posted in good faith on this discussion, and I am absolutely ''furious'' at being accused of this - editors that know my worldview and the articles I patrol will know why. Could someone apply a measure of clue to this editor, making it clear that their comments are not acceptable? (and I would be appreciative if their latest claim that I am a racist was struck as well). Thank you. ] (]) 22:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
	:''RPA'd'' comment. <small>]</small> 23:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
			5. After I wrote a more detailed rationale why the file was suitable as fair-use, they refused to answer my own simple question responding instead with: {{tq|I can answer all the questions posed in this message. And I will, if it be necessary. But first, please answer the question - and, for the sake of the experiment, let's assume that all the images in that category are really unsuitable...}} and asked me an "experimental question" whether I could create from scratch a "completely free image", a proposal that would involve spending a large amount of money. Diff: As a volunteer editor, that seemed utterly absurd, and it became clear to me they were just yanking my chain.
	::I made no claim any editor was racist. I said that claims such as "Yet another mass shooting in America", and "Another week, another US shooting" are despicable racism. Arguments that somehow Americans are killers and attacks on them should be expected (or whatever these editors are implying) are against the guidlelines of ITN which tell us not to comment about connections of events with only one country, and personally offensive. I am quite happy with the references to Americans being struck if my comments are to be struck. ] (]) 00:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::'American' is not a race, by any definition I have seen... ] (]) 00:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Anti-American Bigotry, whatever. I define racism as making collective moral judgments about people due to where they are born. I've removed the references to nationality and hatted the side discussion. . I have no problem with people redacting my comments within the hat if they have a further problem. ] (]) 00:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::So, what would Medeis write in her oppose comment if someone were to nominate a suicide bomb attack in Baghdad in which 5 people are killed? ] (]) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::You removed "in America" and "US" as "RPA", seriously? I don't think that was the appropriate response either, Medeis. (If it matters, I'm an American.) <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 00:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Seriously? Are you ''baiting'' me, Iblis? I suggest an admin close this, there's no ongoing dispute. And yes, LoS, I think that's a simple solution when ITN guidelines explicitly tell us not to refer to an event being associated with just one country. ] (]) 00:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Medeis should not remove these comments. People must be able to make assessments like that, just like in my hypothetical example above, for Iraqi standards 5 people killed in an attack isn't a notable event because of the huge levels of violence there. People must be free to make that judgement and post that without being accused of racism, bigotry or whatever. ] (]) 00:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*"Yet another mass shooting in America" is not racist or bigoted: saying so is, forgive me please, pretty dumb. Mass shootings are common in America, it's a sad truth. I have no idea what you're referring to with a guideline etc, but "personal attack" is silly. ] (]) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I have reverted the redaction. I have no opinion on the hatting, but it was a package deal. Medeis may find the comments sad, or callous, or dismissive, but they're not personal attacks on anything or anyone. ] (]) 01:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Oh well. that we should all stay out of it; it's a private matter of some sort? and their redaction is an attempt at a solution? Or they've gone off the deep end in their Stamping Out Of Racism At ITN. ] (]) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	**The reversal has been reversed. I would hope Medeis will not edit war over this. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	***Thank you. Now, Medeis was proposing a quid pro quo of sorts--the comments remain redacted and in turn they would redact their comments. Well, I don't accept such a QPQ and I am in agreement with Black Kite. Indeed, I offered three thesaurus items above from which Medeis is free to pick one: the racism claim needs to be taken back, without wishy-washing (we've seen too much of that recently). ] (]) 02:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	****For clarity, I was not the one did the revesal - I was going to, but was beaten to it. I just don't remember that editor's name. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 02:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*****I did it. Just in case the thing snowballs while I am offline, I'll defend myself now. There was consensus here that the comments relating to the US did not constitute racism, bigotry or personal attacks. The context of an event is relevant to ITN, and no editor has the right to individually censor or remove comments which ''directly'' relate to the context of an event, which the two comments Medeis {{tl|RPA}}'d did. I would also point out that a source in the ITN nomination, from a mainstream US media outlet, comments on the frequency of mass shootings and directly quotes the president talking about the issue ( ''NBC''). —]— <sub>''']'''</sub> 02:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	******I was reverted literally as I posted here (it initially seemed that the issue was resolved; clearly not...) I undid due to the consensus here, pointed Medeis in this direction, and will make no further edits to ITNC. —]— <sub>''']'''</sub> 03:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*******I have been reverted yet again (I presume that Medeis has broken 3RR at this point). I find Medeis's liberal attitude to playing the race card and to censoring other people's comments to be sickening. —]— <sub>''']'''</sub> 03:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	********Correction: there's nothing "liberal" about that, WFC. It's a lot of other things, but not that. ] (]) 03:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ping|Drmies}} I don't think he means "liberal" in the political sense, -- ''']''' 03:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::A poor choice of words. A lot of people I know are "liberals", and they are wonderful people. I meant liberal as in "doing those things a lot". —]— <sub>''']'''</sub> 03:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	I have blocked Medeis 24 hours for edit warring. I also put it back to the version that says America and US. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">]<span style="color: #22aaaa">of</span>]</span> 03:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			6. I then noticed they were treating others in similar ways, for example asking editors to buy a glass basketball backboard shield specifically to then smash it with a rock after installing a camera specifically to create a fair use image. Diffs: by {{u|Left guide}}) ]. This clearly seemed they were wikilawyering and arguing for the sake of argument with the intent to annoy and intimidate others. I think it was around this time that {{u|Star Mississippi}} issued a short block.
	== User study? ==
			7. I then noticed on their user page a link to their “Laboratory”, which creeped me out because the strange “experimental questions” seemed like mind-games. I noticed that not only was there an entry for the Zuni fetishes file, but that some of it was actually written in “invisible ink” using the < ! -- template, and included a a number of my file uploads. Diff from January 2: and . I know that being creepy is not a blockable offense but it scared the daylights me, because I have been Wiki-stalked not only online, but in real life.
	I was very surprised when popped up on my watchlist on the ] page; on checking, the had been posted to ]. I reverted them on the basis that this doesn't belong on a WP:-space page (WT:-space would be another matter), but thought I'd ping here to see if this is something that's been through the process and somebody just put it on the wrong page, or if there's something else going on here, seeing as the user named in the postings has made no edits other than a one-line bio on his userpage... - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:, on proper WT:-space pages now... - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 10:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Just seen a post at . ]] 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I've left Maggie Dennis a talk page note requesting she verify this isn't WMF approved, but it doesn't feel like it is. WKmaster posted his proposal a long time ago on meta (and got no response) so this seems much more like a lack of communication than intentionally malicious. <small>]</small> 10:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::{{ec}} If this becomes a problem, then perhaps it should be taken up ] (linked to within the posted text). <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 10:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for bringing this to my attention, ]. :) I'm checking with the individual and with the research committee to see if approval has been granted for subject recruitment. In the meantime, I have removed all of the invitations that I see. I'll help restore them if it turns out that this was a communication snafu and the project is approved. I suspect you're quite right that this may be confusion. He set up the page on Meta, but I don't ''see'' any sign that the research committee responded - I'm not sure if he emailed the link. I have linked him to ] in case. --] (]) 11:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I noticed that s/he has been the sole editor of that meta page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::: I am on the Research Committee, and I can not recollect this being approved. We normally do not approve mass edits by IP. It would be good to double-chack with the editor though.--] (]) 21:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			8. I directly asked them to STOP following me around. Instead they created a user sub-page, replacing all the images with 19th century inaccurate illustrations, romanticized representations of the art of Zuni tribe Native Americans by none other than an ethnographer who looted artifacts from the Zuni people. Diff: I again demanded that they STOP and I quit editing. I refuse to be someone's "experimental laboratory" subject, that is disturbingly creepy.
	== Alexis Reich move discussion ==
			9. If this is considered “normal” behavior by administrators, well, then after 13 years of editing, I’m out of here. I can not and I will not have a hobby as a volunteer editor in a place where I feel unsafe and harassed, especially from a single-purpose editor with a long history of such behavior – no matter if their tagging or deletions are “correct.”
	I'd like to get some eyes on the situation at ]. The article is about a person who transitioned from male to female, and the article is currently at the female name. There is currently ] in which a move to the previous name is proposed by {{user|Obiwankenobi}} per ]. {{user|Sceptre}} performed of the discussion here, instructing that it not be re-opened per BLP without gaining consensus on a noticeboard thread. The close by {{user|NE Ent}}. I don't want to see a repeat of the Manning debacle, so I thought I'd take the situation here for community input. ] (]) 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			] (]) 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm not going to respond point by point here, but I don't think the uncivil interactions with you are "normal" behavior. The issue is that Iruka was already blocked for that conduct and I still don't see how the pages Iruka created in his userspace{{snd}}which did not mention you by name and which he did not notify you of{{snd}}are harassment. If Iruka starts being uncivil again or starts harassing people, I'll be the first to indef him. ] (]/]) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	FWIW, this seems like an entire exercise to prove the point that WP:CommonName should override WP:BLP. I just a few days ago removed from the article the unsourced convictions in the info box - possession of Child pornography, False confession, Battery , Obstruction of justice because there seems to be no sourcing to support them. I also removed the category "American people convicted of child pornography offenses." People may rightly find Reich is strange and likely delusional but she is still a human being and should not be convicted only on Misplaced Pages when no other sources do. Likewise we shouldn't push her article back into the closet. Renaming the article will not help anything. ] (]) 02:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::The issue seems to be that the behavior Netherzone mentions has been experience by ''multiple other users''. This appears to be a pattern of inappropriate behavior spread out over quite some time. And quite honestly, the "laboratory" really does strike me as creepy behavior intended to needle other editors. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The only two editors I have seen complain about stalking are Netherzone and Peterspeterson. I've asked multiple times for evidence that Iruka's file deletion nominations are largely incorrect, but the only evidence provided thus far have been files that other admins have seen fit to delete and contested FFD discussions. In my view, this complaint seems largely based on vibes and conduct preceding the block. ] (]/]) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Having been pinged to this, my experience and another thread I saw suggests to me that the user really wants to delete things - not just that they are being gnomish in the area of deletion for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, no, that they actively want to delete stuff and be uncivil to those who do not share this philosophy. In this way, they seem to mass search for anything that could have a valid reason to delete, even if another another option is better or, as in what drew my attention, even if they have to make up some reason why a file meets deletion rationale when it doesn’t. That is another issue: while their deletion noms may be generally correct because they are seeking out files with issues, their tagging of files that only need reduction to be deleted, their tagging of Commons-eligible files, and their bizarre suggestion to purchase an iage license as proof of owenership, strike me as someone who does not understand Misplaced Pages or Commons policy very well and does not care if understanding will get in the way of their tagging g. ULtimately, the poor tags that may not get chance to be corrected, and rejectiong collaboratoon, negate any positive of being the first person to tag some bad files and thus make the user’s contributions in deletion a net negative for WP. I am struggling just to type this on mobile so can’t or provide diffs atm. ] (]) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== User:अधिवक्ता संतोष, legal threat ==
	See also ] <small>]</small> 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{Atop|अधिवक्ता संतोष is now blocked. The phrase that they were concerned about is now also removed. ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|अधिवक्ता संतोष}} See ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 06:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I obviously don't condone the legal threat, and an admin would be well within their right to block. But the complaint was about real vandalism (a claim that a prominent actor had entered politics "due to a failed acting career") that had remained up for a month—I can understand why someone would be frustrated. I have removed the claim and would not recommend any further action. ] (]) 06:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::From their latest remark on the article talk page, it sounds like you removed the sentence that set them off, ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes, as I said above {{tq|I have removed the claim}}. There are related conversations happening on the talk page as well as ]. ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Can you please notify the user of this discussion? ]] 16:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I've done so here: {{diff2|1269465106}} ] ] 20:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I have blocked because, although they may have had a legitimate grievance, they went about addressing it the wrong way. ] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: Yes he, appears to have voted in it and closed it, just as he talkpage.
			{{Abot}}
	I've always understood that if you vote on something, you shouldn't be the one to close it <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:0.50x;">].<font style="color:white;background:blue;">&nbsp;'''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh ...&nbsp;</font></span> 11:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*Just as an update, I have unblocked this user as they have agreed to avoid discussion of Indian law and making edit requests; as they did have one legitimate grievance, they may have others. They are also aware they will need to disclose as a paid editor. ] (]) 16:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::She. I recommend using ] or {{tl|gender}} e.g. <nowiki>{{gender|Sceptre}}</nowiki> if you're unsure about an editor's gender. <small>]</small> 11:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			== User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles ==
	I was quite peeved to see that sceptre closed that discussion and ''ordered'' it stay closed. Does he, or anyone for that matter have the authority to do that? Also, the discussion at that talk page is also starting to take a nasty turn for the worse. This is going to Manning part 2.] (]) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Sceptre is currently under a ] of anything related to Chelsea Manning and while I wouldn't say all trans* or LGBT topics are connected to Manning, I will say that Sceptre's close itself refers to Manning and as such Sceptre was continuing to make edits that she herself considered Manning-related and thus violated her topic ban.--v/r - ]] 16:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Sceptre's change was reverted and they didn't press the issue. I don't want their good faith efforts to be punished here. Let's drop the sticks and get back to the discussion in a civil fashion.--] (]) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			] keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on ], however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.
	*'''Administrators''': Please note that the ] arbitration request allows discretionary sanctions when it comes to articles dealing with transgendered issues. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 09:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			Diffs:
	== Daira Hopwood remarks ==
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
	{{archivetop|The user has been warned not to engage in personal attacks in the future. ] (]) 04:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)}}
			* 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)
	This user has clearly crossed the line calling someone a "raving transphobe". It's at the bottom of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Daira_Hopwood#break <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			* 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.
			::::::::::::::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)
			:::::::::::::::So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right??]] 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::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 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)
			{{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)
			::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)
			::{{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)
			== A bizare editing war on the trotskyist organization list ==
	:Would this count as a personal attack? - ] (]) 22:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*{{pagelinks|List of Trotskyist organizations by country}}
	:To aid in the search I will post the diff here: . - ] (]) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			In the last 24 hours some strage editing war seem to have taking place on the following page trying to remove or change it's content:
	::I honestly don't have time to defend this right now; I'm due to make a presentation on programming language design tomorrow. I'll come back to it in a few days. In the meantime I don't intend to withdraw my remark (I actually haven't decided whether to withdraw or modify it at all). If you block me for that, so be it; I just want to point out that I'm the author of a current proposal to change ], and you might want to think about the number of eyebrows that might be raised in the trans community if I'm blocked for calling out transphobia at this point. Just saying. --] (]) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, your a real martyr.] (]) 01:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Hmm. I offered an olive branch and forgiveness; instead Daira rejects it, claims they are "busy" (too busy to strike a comment, or too proud?), basically intimates they are ok with being blocked, and then, in a backhanded manner, threatens wikipedia with negative publicity because they have posted what I and others believe is an unlikely-to-pass proposal at ].--] (]) 02:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah I noticed that too, the intimates bit is what bothers me the most. - ] (]) 02:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Or we could avoid assuming bad faith and take her at her word that she'll invest time in this exercise when she has time to devote. ] (]) 02:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Can we give Daria a break here?
	::Daira. --] (]) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	: I think I've conducted myself with a pretty level head throughout this business, but I certainly found Obi-wan's latest move insensitive enough to ] somewhat. Given Daria is herself trans, it's hardly surprising she'd be similarly furious. Can we give her the opportunity to make things right rather than proceeding directly to administrative action? ] (]) 22:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			https://en.m.wikipedia.org/List_of_Trotskyist_organizations_by_country ] (]) 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::A personal attack is still a personal attack, and it has not just been Obi wan,
			:This looks like a content dispute. As ever, it should be addressed by reliable sources (which usually don't include social media sites) and talk page discussion. ] (]) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Actually I really must object to this. The only other specific criticism of a particular user I've made recently is Knowledgekid87, and that was because they accused me of having a COI due to being trans. I said I'd report them (it would probably to ARBCOM) if they persisted with that argument, which I think is entirely reasonable. --] (]) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			::These edit wars occur fairly regularly on articles related to these groups as there is a lot of in-fighting and division among members, former members and interested parties especially regarding the lineage of Trotskyist and communist organizations. If you are concerned and it continues, you can open a report at ] and please notify the involved editors when you open complaints like this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: someone needs to step in and say that these things are just not okay. Im not saying Daria should be blocked forever im saying that she should take a wikibreak for a bit and come back when there is less drama here at the very least. - ] (]) 22:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::Communist organisations taking chunks out of one another? Well, I never — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::If Daria is punished then the same fate should befall those who baited her into frustration. The Chelse Manning discussion and now the Alexis Reich one are filled with insensitive comments. The entire discussion on Reich's name is offensive from the start. X is a living person, should we change her name thus misgendering her? No. End of story. ] (]) 22:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Sport this isn't about the move discussion this is about an editor making a personal attack against another editor, it has to stop. - ] (]) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)		::::To be fair, there is nothing more insulting than being incorrectly called a Trotskyist. ] (]/]) 01:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Well will the baiting and transphobic comments stop? If she had nothing to respond to why should we believe she would say anything? ] (]) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)		:::::Yes, this oddity appears to likely be Stalinist splinters trolling each other by adding their rivals to the list of Trotskyist groups. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't know if this is really bizarre -- I'd say "Trotskyist organizations getting into petty internecine conflict" is about as predictable as, oh, someone already made this exact same comment. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 06:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Please post diffs of the supposedly transphobic comments here at ANI so other eds can review and decide on sanctions if necessary. A vague hand-wave, or the assertion that any move request for an article of a trans* person is inherently transphobic, does not count however.--] (]) 02:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			::<small>The disputes between ], The Judean People's Popular Front, The Campaign for a Free Galilee, and The Popular Front of Judea? ] (]) 08:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	{{collapse top|A small selection from the Manning discussion courtesy of the workshop case}}
	A significant number of !votes in the requested move discussion included statements that indicated the user's personal dislike, contempt or ignorance of transgenderism. These statements are not necessarily indicative of intentional ] (though some are), but they are indicative of a failure to understand or accept a modern medical and psychological understanding of transgender people. They often demonstrate a profound insensitivity to the article subject that is at odds with human decency — up to and including complete denial of her gender identity.
	* ] refers to Manning as a male and claims that "he is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action."
	* ] calls the move "activist stupidity... bringing WP into disrepute" and demands that the article not be renamed until Manning undergoes sex change surgery
	* ] rejects Manning's transgenderism entirely, saying "he is definitely male."
	* An anonymous IP user asserts that renaming the article is "radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male)."
	* An anonymous IP user claims that renaming the article was "done only to please the social justice warriors. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a neutral source, not a forum to push your gender politics."
	* ] says "Actually my biggest problem with this whole debate is people telling me what I have to do. There is no framework for issues like this and it should be discussed and figured out, but I am not a person that likes to be told "you have to do it this way" especially when their reason is "I want it to be that way" or "It makes me feel better". Please stop implying that all gender identity issues have been worked out and that everyone agreees with you, some people are uncomfertable calling people who are genetically and physically male "her" and "she" for any number of reasons."
	* An anonymous IP user claims "I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime."
	* ] says "(S)He is a male, was through the entire trial, and will be throughout the entire prison sentence. (S)He has been and will be a male for everything that (s)he is notable for."
	* ] says "No matter what '''he''' says, '''he''' is still '''himself'''" - with bolding as per the original.
	* ] says "The subject is still male in every meaningful sense."
	* ] says "Oh come on, let's be real here. Who the hell is Chelsea Manning? What he chooses to call himself now is utterly irrelevant."
	* ] says "While I think there's nothing wrong with being transgender, the level of activism here that has nothing to do with Manning makes me want to vomit. Please take your struggle for recognition elsewhere."
	* ] writes "I think the politicization and ridiculous PC attitude on this website do a disservice to people hoping to get factual information. The fact is, this is a guy, legally and biologically, who has a male name legally. He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left."
	* ] says "If I had a Misplaced Pages article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense? Biologically he is a man and will die a man (check his chromosomes XY), and legally he is a man (he even asks to be called by his male name in official stuff). It is stupid to change the wikipedia article... this deserves, at most, a brief section. Misplaced Pages is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda."
	* ] wrote ""I am a girl, call me Chelsea" is the worst move rational I've heard in a while. This page is currently laughable and embarrassing."
	* ] claimed that "his actual name is Bradley Manning" and called the move "LGBT politics run amok."
	* ] opposed the move on the grounds that "1) Gender change currently is just a wish and not official. 2) Gender change is not carried out physically."
	* ] refers to transgenderism and Manning's announcement as a "one-day circus freak show."
	* ] says "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog instead of a human, that we should refer to him as Rover, and use "it" instead of "he/she"? Manning can say that he wants to be a girl all he wants, but the fact remains that he's not."
	* ] says "He's still a man."
	* ] says "Just because (s)he has shouted to be known by some other name does not actually mean that (s)he is actually a transgender."
	* ] says "this individual is morphologically, chromosomally, and most important legally still male."
	* ] says "He's still got the chromosomes, package and legal name of a guy and no ammount of critical queer/feminist/gender analysis will get around those three simple truths."
	* ] says "he is Bradley Manning and will be until his sentence is served. He will be housed with male inmates and will not be given any gender reassigmnent. He can call himself anything he likes, but legally his name is Bradley Manning, He is widely known as Bradley Manning and the Army will only refer to him as Bradley Manning. "Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist."
	* ] says "Misplaced Pages (which purports to be an encyclopaedia) and it's talk pages shouldn't become a forum for LGBT activism WP:ACTIVIST . "Sensitivity" for Private Manning's feelings (who is a criminal convicted of treason) is just a red herring. This entire episode has been a phenomenally successful work of internet activism; The topic of transgender-ism (originating from THIS very page) has now made most mainstream media outlets (with the exception of the left wing press, the reputation of wikipedia has taken a severe battering)."
	{{collapse bottom}}
	:::::As far as I can tell, those quotes are all from the Manning discussion. However, you have said the Alexis Reich discussion is full of transphobic comments, and I was called a 'raving transphobe' because of that discussion. Please post diffs, specifically from that discussion, of language you believe demonstrates hatred of trans* people.--] (]) 04:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			== Has this editor been gaming to get EC? ==
	::::Okay you have your list, now who is the one or ones that go through it and see which ones are personal attacks and which ones aren't against editors? This discussion involves one editor calling another editor transphobic. - ] (]) 02:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|status=Game off|1=Editor does not appear to be gaming the system. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::::I fully expect that absolutely nothing will be done to any of those shown to have made any regrettable remarks here or elsewhere. Absolutely nothing. ] (]) 03:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Blatant ] should not be allowed. Daira_Hopwood should be blocked. ] (]) 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Where was all this concern when Reich's article showed her as convicted for child porn? ] (]) 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)		Loads of tiny edits, others unsourced. See also ]. ] ] 20:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Would they actually be gaming for EC if they continued their really fast edits after getting EC? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::I've never heard of this person until today. ] (]) 23:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::Their 500th edit was on Jan 14 15:58. They've continued to make a whole ton of edits after that point, so they're probably not trying to game. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::It was more of a general comment, please ignore if you hadn't worked on the article. ] (]) 02:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::I wondered about that also, perhaps they didn’t know they had made 500 edots
	:::Kk87, if you'd like to give her an opportunity to cool down a little, perhaps that isn't best achieved by dragging her through the muck at ANI. ] (]) 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::: That’s why I brought it here. ] ] 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::: Chris the topic is heated and is not likely to go away any time soon I cant make the final say here but my opinion stands, how many more personal attacks are we just going to let go? What if it was against you? I have had my share of personal attacks against me and I know if I made them against other editors I would expect a response like this. - ] (]) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::Right. For experienced users it's easy to see when the 500 edit mark has been passed, but for a new user maybe not so much. To ] and then ] three minutes later is pretty suggestive of gaming. ] &#124; ] 21:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC).
	{{od}} I respect Daira and her views and I understand she is angry and lashed out. It was a clear violation of NPA but I don't want to press charges here. I'd be happy to strike anything I said in past days that offended anyone, and I'd kindly ask Daira to do the same, and then will consider this matter closed. We don't need punishment for one statement.--] (]) 00:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::::You're correct, I installed a script that states how many edits an account has made but a new editor would not know about these tools or about looking at Edit Count on the Contributions page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Sorry Obi im just tired of seeing all this hate on Misplaced Pages I have seen the word transphobia pop up so many times over the last few days and have been accused of making bad statements here as well, this has latterly turned into an emotional war from the renaming of two articles now. - ] (]) 00:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm sorry, but I don't see why Daira_Hopwood's hate speech should be allowed on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)		::::::I find that script very useful. ] ] 07:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:We'll only know for-almost-sure if the editor now does something for which thay need the extended confirmed right. ] (]) 21:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I agree. Whether she is a transgender person or not, whether she has made good contributions or not, and whether she has proposed changes to policies or not, none of that excuses her personal attack or her hate speech. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 01:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			::True. But I worry about the quality of their edits. See for instance ] which added Hanim to her birth name so it now reads "Born as Ayşe Hanım" in the "Early life" section, contradicting the lead. ] ] 08:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::So again we're getting all revved up and up at arms over calling out transphobic actions/behaviors instead of addressing the actions and behaviors in the first place. Isn't this blaming the victim for calling foul or is it a move to claim victim status when stomping on trans people issues? ] (]) 02:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::<small>(They have the best username, though! ] &#124; ] 15:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC).)</small>
	:::::Please post the specific diffs of transphobic comments, and propose sanctions against those editors if you feel it necessary.--] (]) 02:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::I think a reminder on their talk page to pay attention to quality when editing quickly is appropriate for now, and this can be closed as consensus against existence of EC gaming. ] (]) 19:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::SF, no one is denying that there have been some transphobic comments made, but this is specifically about Hopwood calling Obi a "raving transphobe". AFAICT he hasn't even come close to making any such transgressions. If Hopwood can't control her mouth, or in this case her fingers she has no business participating in topics that cause her to lose control.] (]) 02:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::Agreed. ] ] 20:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Then wait until she can respond to the incident herself. In my opinion she should be absolutely given as much as a pass as all the editors who said some truly vile and misinformed statements about Chelsea Manning and trans people in general. I'll hold my breath now until that happens (sarcasm!). ] (]) 03:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::::::There is no defense she can offer but an apology, of which she doesn't seem inclined to do.] (]) 03:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			== User:MeetSingh316 ==
	== Tendentious and disruptive editing by user:Czixhc at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ==
			{{atop
			| result = Blocked. ] (]/]) 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			*{{userlinks|MeetSingh316}}
			{{user|MeetSingh316}}, after edit warring on ] and claiming to be "correct misinformation", appears to have ]. ] ]∫] 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:مشرا ==
	Please see ]. For over two weeks now, ] has been arguing for a map of 'human skin colour' to be accepted as a reliable source, in spite of being repeatedly (and unanimously) told that it isn't by ], ], ], ] and myself (]). We have been repeatedly told by Czixhc that only he/she understands policy, that we are all wrong, and that Czixhc is right. Czixhc has accused others of lying , and has point-blank refused to accept anyone's judgement but his/her own. It is clearly ridiculous that a dispute like this should be allowed to go on so long where there is an overwhelming consensus, and since it is evident that Czixhc is unwilling to accept the decision of others, I have to suggest that this contributor has acted in a manner which can only be seen as disruptive - and accordingly I suggest that Czixhc be blocked from editing until s/he makes it entirely clear that such behaviour will not be repeated. The reliable sources noticeboard is intended as a means to obtain outside input regarding the reliability of sources - it is not a platform for endless tedious and repetitive promotion of a source against the clear consensus of experienced editors. If Czixhc is unwilling to accept this, I'm sure we will manage fine without his/her contributions. ] (]) 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:I concur with and endorse Andy's report. --] &#x007C; ] 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			| status = BLOCKED
	::As a completely uninvolved editor, I also concur with and endorse Andy's report. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 03:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::*I don't get it, I haven't violated any rule and have discussed in a rather civilized manner all this time, what's really wrong with that? ] (]) 03:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I see that andy have (nedlessly) brought the discussion to this board, well, i will explain my point here too: thus far, there have been a discussion regarding certain image (a map that i want to include on wikipedia). The problem here basically lies on me holding that the map is reliable because it fully meets the criteria for self published sources (as i explain here the exact diff is here ) while the users on opposition, mainly the user who started this discussion, assert that my map is not reliable because there is 3 users that activelly oppose to it (despite that my map in fact fulfillis the criteria) to which I cited to him that consensus i'll cite it textually here: "Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." this is why i reject that my map is not situable. The user to which i accused of lying is an user that has a particular habit of extending discussion without adhering to any policy, and to be precise i called him so because he has the tendency of ignore all my responses and just repeat the same argument again and again, he also intentionally misinterprets all my responses. I also have to note that the user andythegrump insulted me in the reliable sources noticeboard . That's all, i really haven't violated any rule or policy, neither incurred on disruptive editing, thus far i've only adhered to wikipedia's policies. finally while this is not the appropiate board, any sugestions about how to reach a consensus that leaves every party satisfied are welcome. ] (]) 03:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::user:Czixhc continues to bluster meaninglessly to disguise the underlying issue: he wishes to use a self-published source from an artist, a production designer, as an "expert" on human skin color distribution, based on the fact that the guy is one of a myriad instructors at an obscure school of architecture. --] &#x007C; ] 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::OrangeMike, the ] is not an obscure school at all, by the way, here is one of my sources . ] (]) 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			| result = User indeffed. {{nac}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I have not brought 'the discussion' to this noticeboard. I have brought your behaviour here. If you think that you are going to be permitted to use WP:ANI as another platform for the same tendentious behaviour, I suggest you think again. And yes, I referred to your tedious repetitive bollocks as bollocks - which I'm sure will be the consensus of all those willing to read through the whole dreary thread. Please do yourself a favour and accept, just this once, that you are wrong, and save us all the tedious necessity of coming to the same obvious conclusion that everyone else has already... ] (])
			}}
	:::You shouldn't have done it, i haven't violated any rule, i just defend my posture based on sources, adhering to policies and because i believe that wikipedia must be impartial and not follow the interests or opinions of particular editors. Right now you've violated more guidelines than me. ] (]) 03:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{Userlinks|مشرا}}, who is ] and already got multiple articles deleted (e.g., ]), has now started a promotional campaign in favor of jihadist ] and his self-published book '']'', which they also promoted on other pages (e.g., ]). I would support an indefinite block from mainspace, as already proposed by {{u|Mach61}}.<span id="Est._2021:1736929082988:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt">{{snd}}] (] <b>·</b> ]) 08:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	::::More tendentious bollocks. ] (]) 03:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::You are right now breaking ] are you aware of that? You also can't request to block other users just because they disagree with you, that's not how it works. ] (]) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I have proposed you be blocked because of your disruptive behaviour. The same behaviour that you seem keen to continue here. I'll ask one last time: are you going to accept the clear consensus at WP:RSN, or are you prepared to accept the consequences if you don't? ] (]) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::To discuss something adhering to policies is not a disruptive behavoir, you clearly need to read more about wikipedia's policies, in fact, what actually makes an adiministrator to block an user is a conduct such as the one you've been showing with you insulting me. ] (]) 03:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Will those reading this thread please note that Czixhc has been contributing to Misplaced Pages for less than three months. And then compare that to the editing histories of those who have disagreed with Czixhc concerning the reliability of the source. And then consider who is more likely to be familiar with policy... ] (]) 03:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:I've given the user a ], since Urdu seems to be their primary language () and their apparent grasp of English doesn't inspire confidence in their potential as a long-term contributor on enwiki. --] (]) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': As an ''almost'' completely uninvolved editor, I read through the entire RSN and the linked material. And I was trying to figure out how to close the discussion as a non-admin, or at least push it towards closure. (I do admit that I have two RSNs pending that I wish would get more attention.) But then this ANI has popped up. AndyTheGrump is completely correct. Consensus on the RSN is against Czixhc, and Czixhc patently refuses to accept what the community has said. The responses here echo that ] approach and spirit. <s>Please block Czixhc in order to provide time for reflection and to allow the RSN to close.</s> – ] (]) 03:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC) ADDENDUM re strikeout. Czixhc seems to have accepted community consensus (with reluctance and reservations) and the RSN is closed. If Czixhc will refrain from further comment here and on the RSN, I recommend closing this ANI as well with no further action. – ] (]) 04:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::], for some reason your signature doesn't seem to have worked there. ] (]) 08:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*On sight of the direction this discussion has taken, i believe that it's the best for me to desist for now, I'll wait until an administrator revises my case to keep discussing this. Right now there is a huge amount of editors against me and this has boiled up, I have no problem with doing so, though i really didn't though that wikipedia worked this way on reality. I also have to point out that Andy the grump have been blocked many times before, with the reason for various of these being personal attacks: . ] (]) 04:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::Fixed. Not sure why, but ] didn't subst: the template. --] (]) 08:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Also: ] since the "not new to ANI" link in the original post doesn't point to archives. --] (]) 08:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You are also requested to help new people instead of blogging, of course new people need your help, you and all others are requested to delete any content on the page that violates Misplaced Pages's rules. Go against it and keep the page just with a few words to identify the historian and his book, it won't hurt Misplaced Pages, I hope you help newbies, thanks. 08:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)] (]) 08:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::We certainly want to help newbies, but "]" is not an argument to keep something. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Moreover, you should stop promoting that terrorist as "an influent historian" and his work as "the most important history book ever" {{sic}}. That's just a bunch of ]es and ]. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 09:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::PS: You've been editing enwiki for years, stop hiding propaganda behind the "newbie" label. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 09:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Blocked'''. I have blocked the user indefinitely as being here only for promotion, for serious competence concerns, and for repeated outrageous accusations against the reviewer of one of their drafts. ] &#124; ] 15:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC).
			{{abot}}
			== Scam phone numbers being added to articles, rangeblock needed ==
	::*'''Note.''' It appears that, contrary to the impression that the post above may have given, Czixhc has not accepted the overwhelming consensus both here and at WP:RSN regarding the non-RS nature of the disputed source, and apparently intends to continue the same tendentious behaviour. Accordingly, I repeat my call that Czixhc be blocked for disruption until such time as s/he agrees to conform with normal standards of behaviour, and to accept that s/he alone is not the final arbiter regarding such matters. ] (]) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Block applied directly to the range. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::*You can calm down already, as i told above, i desist for now. I'll wait to see what an uninvolved administrators think, whatever that administrators says i'm ok with it because i'm not a disruptive editor. ] (]) 05:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			IPs from the have been adding fake scam phone numbers to the articles of airlines and travel companies. Similar issues have recently led to ] and ] being semi protected and 223.190.83.251 being blocked. I think a rangeblock is needed, and a lot of the contributions in the link above need to be revdelled to get rid of the scam number. I went to AIV at first but there is a severe backlog there and the vandalism is continuing and chronic, so I'm here.<span id="Ser!:1736944547951:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 12:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	::::You have a case of ] in spades. You've continued to insist that someone's university profile where the person himself has written that "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." is an indication of expertise in migration. You even suggested at the article talk page that the discussion might be going your way. You are now suggesting so far as I can see that it requires an Administrator to review the issue of reliability to convince you to drop it - this isn't true, we have no special authority when it comes to content. If you don't agree to drop the issue entirely and agree that consensus is that the author of the map and the map itself is not reliable then it's my opinion you should be blocked. And frankly I wouldn't blame anyone for saying 'tendentious bollocks' after the time that's been wasting trying to show you the obvious. ] (]) 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:This has now been sorted. Thanks Zzuuzz. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 13:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::*I though that administrators had special authority on this kind of issues. Anyway, as i told above i desisted already, though i really don't think that uncivil behavoir is justified on any mean, specially with that user being involved on this discussion for like two days only. ] (]) 05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::No problem. Just noting that this isn't their only range, so probably expect others. Thanks for your vigilance. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::*If you thought that administrators had special authority on this kind of issue, then you should have been listening to Orangemike, who is an admin. But, no, Admins do not have any special authority; they have a ] that allows them to clean up messes. And in order to receive the mop, they went through a process that showed the community that they have an understanding of processes and policies that will guide them to using the mop in a way that generally meets the communities desires. -- ] 04:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	*<small>I don't have time to dig into the rest of this, but Czixhc, please properly indent your comments in the future, as it makes the discussion much easier to follow - I have fixed the indenting above as an example. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 07:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)</small>
	::::::It's a bit of shame it had to come this far, but good to see this might be finally coming to an end. I agree that there's no need for a ban or other sanction if Czixhc is genuine about accepting the community consensus. While he is aggressive, stubborn and has a "unique" interpretation of what both policy and sources say, to his credit the few times he came close to breaking ] in my discussions with him he backed off when asked to. He's a new editor here and I ] that this was a genuine lack of understanding of what makes a ] rather than him deliberately trying to be disruptive - hopefully he's been pointed to a bunch of policy he wasn't previously aware of and has become a better wikipedian by going through this process (I note that he appears to be contributing positively to other articles and has added another image, this time with a reliable source). Hopefully the conduct that resulted in his behaviour being raised here is just part of the learning curve of a new editor and there won't be a need to bring this up again. ] (]) 08:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			== ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools ==
	*{{U|Czixhc}}'s filing of an ANI against Andy was inappropriate, and Czixhc is advised to read up on what constitutes vandalism, and take a lesson from this discussion. And ], after all these years, for heaven's sake please ''try'' to curb your language. ] (]) 03:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|PEPSI697}}
	:*I see, thanks. ] (]) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			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.
	== "fucking muppet" probably isn't kosher, right? ==
			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.
	I'm sure there are a million templates I'm supposed to scatter across a million places, but I decline. Too old and too tired. So this is probably malformed etc., which is OK by me, IF I can get an admin to swing by ] and say something about "fucking muppets". I don't want anyone blocked ''per se'', but some adult supervision might be nice. Tks. &bull;&nbsp;]&dagger;] 12:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	] Hello ], ], and ]. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you
	::Uh-oh. ], again. He's normally a very good content contributor, but with a penchant for really crassly unfriendly behaviour sometimes. Yesterday he was on some kind of spree preparing to leave in a huff (dunno why). No idea what he has against you there. Those insults are of course unacceptable. ] ] 12:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*{{ec}} <small>]</small> 12:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	**{{ec}} mea culpa, I committed a minor faux pas by wiping away a template with a mildly snarky edit summary. So if you wanna say I provoked it, go ahead. I don't think so, but OK. I just want someone to ask him to drink a nice cold cola and listen to some elevator music for a while. And perhaps stay away from me, but that might be too much to ask... &bull;&nbsp;]&dagger;] 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	* {{ec}} See also <small>]</small> 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::On a serious note ''that'' is rather unbelievable! <font face="Georgia">]<sub>]</font> 12:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: {{Diff2|1269540618|1}}, {{diff2|1268720318|2}}, {{diff2|1268521356|3}}, {{Diff2|1268313652|4}}, {{Diff2|1268308516|5}}, {{Diff2|1268121077|6}}, {{Diff2|1268119998|7}}, {{Diff2|1268118180|8}}, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is ]. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor ({{u|Augmented Seventh}}): {{diff2|1269323555|1}}, {{diff2|1269333853|2}}, {{diff2|1269126403|3}}. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15.
	*Personally, I'd rather be called a fucking muppet than an unproductive editor (although admittedly I'm both). I suppose someone will deal with Lfdder because he used bad words, but I'm more curious about why every tiny minor thing here has to spiral into a feces hurling contest. --] (]) 12:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Yea, but ''cunt''? :o <font face="Georgia">]<sub>]</font> 12:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} I've blocked for 48 hours for the personal attacks. ]] 12:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I don't think that was the best course of action. Even the target of the insults wasn't asking for a block&mdash;it appears he just wanted someone to tell Lfdder to cool down and stop hurling insults. ] (]) 12:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm inclined to agree. Maybe waiting to see what can be said in defence would be better as an immediate way to proceed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 12:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::: tells me they are not willing to "cool down" any time soon. ]] 13:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I don't think that was the best way to handle it, either. --] (]) 13:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	* (ec) I didn't see the bit about "cunt" before I posted here & said don't block him,... BUT...But anyhow, if you folks think he's a productive editor, then be as lenient or as strict as you wish. I never intended for this to spiral this far, if that's what you meant. Done talking about everything. Not angry, just tired. :-) If anyone wants to scold me or block me, or whatever, then do so. &bull;&nbsp;]&dagger;] 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Good block for active and very recent disruption. 48 hours away from WP is not a life sentence. I use language like this all the time with friends, family and certain colleagues, but only when I know my audience and am very certain that it's going to be understood as an expression of strong emotion, irony or hyperbole and not as an act of aggression. I think it's right to discourage free use of strong language when it's used as aggressively as this. ] ] 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi {{Diff2|1269543780|replaced}} my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential ] violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to {{Diff2|1269546279|seek clarification}} as to why they did this on their talk page. In {{Diff2|1269548452|their response to me}}, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me {{Diff2|1269576325|this}} message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see {{Diff2|1269577089|this}} edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me {{Diff2|1269580448|this}} message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. {{Diff2|1269580707|This}} edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me.
	*Further disruption from this editor, that I saw ''after'' I placed the block - removal of another editor's talk page posts not but , as well as the unexplained blanking of a referenced article section at a . ]] 13:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	** The talk page removal was arguably proper, as what he was removing was a blatantly inappropriate "vandalism" warning (although, again, his tone in doing so could have been different). As for the article blankings, that was a series of edits trying to remove his own prior contributions, at a time when he apparently intended to leave. He stopped doing that when I asked him to. ] ] 13:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	***yes, they have now those edits. ]] 13:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Comment:''' I don't think this was handled well at all. The reality is that people do use the f and c word in discussions and if we're going to block people for using them - without first asking them to stop - we're going to lose a lot of productive editors. Better to ask nicely first I always think. A quick unblock along with a polite request is probably called for right now. --] <small>(])</small> 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:*That's a perfectly good point about the missing warning - they should have had one before the block as a last resort (which would have possibly had the effect of preventing a block, or at least the effect of making a block after a recurrence more defensible.) I look at the language problem from the other direction and I think of the potential number of productive editors who are put off by the locker room assumption that this is how we routinely relate to one another. This aspect of our culture may be a part of explaining the narrow demographic from which WP editors are drawn. ] ] 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::*Personally I feel that editors of such long-standing should not have to be 'warned' that such language/behaviour/attitude is inappropriate; it should be a given. Nonetheless, I am happy to concede that point, and invite any admin who disagrees with my block to remove it if they see fit. ]] 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::*He's and should probably be familiar with the policy by now. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::*Good spot, MRG. That final warning was for which was less egregious than this week's contributions (and actually I wouldn't have issued a templated warning for it myself!) But there's the warning right enough and only just over two weeks old. ] ] 14:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Just to be clear, when I say 'warned' I mean for that specific situation. Many editors are not bothered one bit by expletives (though I never use them myself, they don't bother me at all). Ideally, Serviceablevillian should have asked Lidder to temper his/her language (or requested that an admin do so) in the context of the discussion taking place. We don't want to lose that large subset of people who can't resist the use of <s>scatological terms</s> profanity. Instead, we should focus on keeping their interactions trouble free (i.e., trying to restrict usage to where it isn't a problem). --] <small>(])</small> 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::*The reason I disagree with the block is not because he wasn't warned and so all the forms weren't filled out in triplicate correctly; I disagree with the block because blocking doesn't need to be the first tool we pull out of the toolbox when confronted with an angry person. For all I know, it may well have been necessary eventually, or it may not have. But now we'll never know. --] (]) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Another one of these situations. I think we all know that a civility block doesn't do any good in the sense of modifying future behavior, and at the same time there is at least some consensus that one shouldn't talk to others in certain ways. Lfdder should have been warned for this particular incident (they weren't about to break the wiki or call for someone to be beheaded), but then they were warned a few weeks ago for something similar. An unblock know will, according to some, send the message that anything goes and civility is not to be enforced; according to others, it is the proper way to address a hasty block.<p>If there is a point to blocking, and to this discussion, it should be (for Lfdder) that we don't agree with their choice of words. That they ''could'' get blocked again if they do it again. We don't do cool-down blocks, and I don't see a consensus that Lfdder is incapable of doing anything besides insulting, so I'm inclined to unblock. ] (]) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	** He hasn't requested an unblock, has he? He's probably too proud to do that. I say let him sit it out. It was, after all, a pretty severe case of an insult, and with a background of previous attacks too. The point, for me, is not the choice of words; the point is that it was a deliberate, repeated and unprovoked insult, out of the blue, not made in the heat of anger or under provocation, just a piece of wanton, coolly executed nastiness. So if ever a personal attack did deserve a block, it was this. (And I'm saying this as somebody who, otherwise, has a lot of respect for Lfdder's content contributions.) ] ] 17:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	***Hmm, that's a good point. ] (]) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Good block'''. Misplaced Pages is not the locker room or the after-work bar, the occasional f-bomb is going to happen but, as always, context matters - but the c-word is always unacceptable. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	**I disagree with the latter point, Bushranger--and tell that to ]. ] (]) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	***I prefer ] myself. {{P|3}} - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 20:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	Maybe I'm the exception here but I don't find a 24 or 48 hour block onerous. I mean, not everyone edits Misplaced Pages on a daily basis. And using words like "cunt" really drives some people away. <br>
	I don't see how there can be standard here aiming at professional and civil behavior and then not take note when someone goes on a verbal tear, creating a hostile atmosphere. I think there should be a general warning: If you are angry, stop editing. And, despite the words of those (above) who say a thoughtful word of caution would have calmed down an angry Editor, well, I've seen that backfire more often than work. It's a rare person who in the midst of anger and frustration can consider a rational comment to cease and desist. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::A "thoughtful word of warning" can help, if communicated personally off wiki; it has on rare occasions been known to help even on-wiki. A formal warning notice is only useful in the very rare case where someone actually does not realize. It's a little absurd to talk about just what words are acceptable: we're not a schoolroom. Insults are insults regardless of language. Block have been known to work, if the person is basically of good judgment, but they are very dangerous to use--I know my reaction to one would be something on the order of , let me see if I can do it more cleverly next time. ''']''' (]) 01:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	: Apparently, the blocked user still believes that calling someone a 'fucking muppet' is pretty normal, so that if anybody, instead of unblocking them, would try to teach them manners, it could be very helpful. I had similar problems with this user in the past.--] (]) 09:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - {{diff2|1269549064|here}} they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when ] ] for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of ] without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. ]] 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Ottawa Catholic School Board IP 24.114.29.254 ==
	{{archivetop|result=IP blocked for 2 weeks by {{U|Materialscientist}}. If the issues persist after the block expires, recommend applying a longer 'Schoolblock' to encourage the many users of that IP to register an account. Blanket criticisms of high school students are not appropriate.] (]) 03:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)}}
	{{IPvandal|24.114.29.254}} - I happen to be at this IP address, in the school board it is registered to. This vandalism WILL NOT STOP. High school students are idiots. I recommend permanently blocking this IP now. For further information read my comment on their talk page. ] (]) 13:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. ] (]) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Materialscientist blocked for two weeks. You might also ping your IT office and have them dig into the timing of edits - might be able to figure out who did them and give that poor kid a scare. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 15:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and ], you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. ]] 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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)
			=== Response and apology from PEPSI697 ===
	::Heh, unfortunately I don't think that will be possible; the IP is registered to the entire school board, not just one school. This is well over 30 000 students, and that is why I think this IP should be blocked ASAP. ] (]) 00:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			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)
	<small>Some post-close trolling...</small>
	{{cot|Catholic school you say? Think this ol' template might help?}}
	{{fmbox
	| image = ]
	| text = <div style="font-size:1.4em; font-weight:bold;">Attention</div>
			: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.
	Your IP address ] will be logged by the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc and disseminated publicly. Violators of our ] can and will offend <big>''']'''</big>, who takes defacement, knowingly providing false information, and/or uploading copyrighted material without permission from rights holders very seriously. ] 4:29 commands that you refrain from such corrupt communication. Failure to repent of these sinful actions can result in everlasting destruction (] 1:9), with the smoke of your torment ascending up for ever and ever (] 14:11), after you are cast into ], where your worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched (] 9:44, 46 and 48). Submit to ] (] 13:1) and ]. As irrevocably as your soul may be condemned to eternal punishment for violating the sanctity of this encyclopedia, you agree to release your contributions under the ] License and the ].
			: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)
			== User:Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari's editing ==
			{{atop|status=Plblocked|1=Blocked from article space. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari}}
			{{Ping|Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari}} continues to make several unreferenced edits in several articles, despite being told several times in their talk page to post references. The reported editor was also told many times, to use the edit summary, and looking at their contributions page, they haven't explained any of their edits through their edit summary. They also never respond to talk page messages. Is there anything that can be done with this? I have reported this editor in ANI back in November 2024 and they didn't respond as well.] (]) 15:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Since they have never listened nor responded to talk page since November 2023, I suggest a 7 days block with talk page access, the block should specify that they can appeal the block by explaining themselves, and that they should explain themselves rather than waiting out the 7 days or committing sockpuppetry, the goal is to get them to talk. ] (]) 16:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It looks like they have never used a talk page. ] (]) 17:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			Blocked from article space indefinitely. If they provide a reasonable response anyone can unblock them. ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 17:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Topic ban or ban on creating articles outside the AFC process? ==
			{{atop|status=Sock it to them|1=PsychoticIncall blocked for sockpuppetry. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{Userlinks|PsychoticIncall}} has been an editor since March of last year. As can be seen on their Talk page and on the page creation log, since May 2024, they have created dozens of articles and unlikely redirects, many of which have been deleted after AfDs. Currently, from their talk page alone, I count 29 articles on non-notable poker players that ended up being deleted, and a further nine that ended up as redirects or a merge to a more appropriate article, with only six of the AfD'ed articles being kept. This is obviously a drain on the time of people who regularly participate at New Pages Patrol and/or AfD.
			A to become more familiar with ] and ] and to consider using the ] process for new articles (and to not create unlikely redirects) went unanswered. 23 articles have been deleted/redirected since then, by my count.
			While notability is the main concern, sourcing, spelling and grammar on these pages are all less than ideal. An IP about the user's process for article creation (also unanswered), specifically asking about apparently random/non-sequitur section headings (which can be seen still in place at ]) - similar seemingly random headings were also used on the (now-deleted) article ] article (mentioned in the ].) Many of the surviving articles use essentially random terms, with poker players being described (without sources) as , and .
			I would like to propose ''either'' a topic ban from poker and poker-related articles for PsychoticIncall; ''or'', at minimum, a ban on creating articles outside of the ] process. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You stated that 23 articles have been deleted since September 2024. But are these 23 articles newly created since September 2024, or prior to that? If they have reduced their article creations over time as their articles get deleted (of which 6 survived), I don't think any ban is appropriate, and uninvolved editors should weigh in on a guidance in creating poker player articles in the future. ] (]) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A better question to ask is "Is their ratio of good work to bad any better?" I'd say no, it's not significantly better. I'd support a topic ban or article-space ban; their attachment to the topic seems to keep them immune from listening to requests to change their behavior. - ] ] 22:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I looked at their user creation logs, and they markedly reduced their article creations after Bastun's warning on 17:55, 2 September 2024, seeing they only created 4 articles which admittedly 3 were deleted. I think anyone creating 4 articles and having 3 articles deleted is not ground for ANI. They made a lot of redirects that were deleted though, I think a warning against careless redirect creations is appropriate, because it appears they listen to warnings. ] (]) 07:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A quick check of the creation logs is showing me that since 30 September, they have created 32 redirects, 5 of which remain undeleted, and 9 articles, 2 of which remain undeleted. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			Please just block them indef, they not only have massive competence issues but they are a sock of a blocked editor, . I can provide more evidence or start an SPI if necessary. ] (]) 09:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Oh, wow - good catch! Looking at ], it looks indistinguishable from ]. Note also the use of the invented (?) term, "quarter professional", in article titles on that talk page, a term PsychoticIncall also uses. Quack. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think this is a convincing case for SPI, please start it. ] (]) 12:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I've started it. - ] ] 12:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::However, there is a big gap in time since EBBB was blocked until now, so we may not get good CU results. But I'm going to block on behavior for now. - ] ] 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:Adrikshit ==
			{{userlinks|Adrikshit}}, has been continuously adding ] content or changing referenced content, often relating to Bhojpuri related articles.
			*'''Some examples:''' , .
			*'''Examples of ]''': , .
			*'''Examples of ]''': , , , , .
			*'''Warnings''': , , , , .
			I made contact with this user for the first time, after reverting an edit, in which the user changed the names of the headings on ], this edit went unnoticed for a while, but a similar one was reverted before that. There was also dispute on the Bhojpuri page, in this case I do believe I should have jumped to ] faster, rather than continuing with reverting. However the user often jumps to ] or warnings: ,
			I don't really know how to further deal with this. ] (]) 18:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I see that there is nothing about this dispute at ]. ] (]) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Based on the discussion mentioned above, I think it is unlikely that that would have been resolved, besides changing the headings, the user also deleted other names of the languages and how Caribbean Hindustani is also based on another language besides Bhojpuri: . ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Suspicious activity of several accounts ==
			{{atop|result=OP has withdrawn complaint. They know the way to ] and have been encouraged to make use of it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I'm not going to take this to sockpuppet investigation because I don't have enough evidence of sockpuppetry. So I'm going to report it here just in case, someone could investigate this situation. {{ping|Kaloypangilinan}} restored {{ping|CindyMalena}}'s edits in these two articles.. I reverted CindyMalena's edits because they were unreferenced. Both these editors didn't add a reference to the same names they've added in the two articles and they didn't use the edit summary. These are the unreferenced edits of CindyMalena. The changes of CindyMalena/Kaloypangilinan aren't 100% identical, but they've added names that the references of the article don't mention. Kaloypangilinan has been warned 4 times (last year) in their talkpage for unreferenced content. Kaloypangilinan also don't respond to talk page messages, they've been reported here in ANI before, and still continue to make unreferenced edits. Since I became suspicious if these two editors are connected, I discovered CindyMalena created this page for "Kaloy Tingcungco", an actor in the Philippines according to Google. Then I googled "Kaloy Pangilinan" in google and pictures of the Philippine actor "Kaloy Tingcungco" came out. Whats weirder is CindyMalena edited the Wikipage of this blocked account ]. I don't know how can a newly created account edit a Wikipage of a blocked editor, if they aren't connected. ] (]) 18:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You really should take this to ]. For one thing, if you're right, it's the appropriate venue. For another, if you're wrong but have put together a case with behavioural evidence such as the editing of a blocked editor's user boxes you're less likely to get accused of casting aspersions. My sincere recommendation is to withdraw this incident report and then create a SPI case. ] (]) 18:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Per {{ping|Simonm223}}'s suggestion, I'm going to withdraw this incident report. As for a SPI case, both CindyMalena and Kaloypangilinan have less than 200 edits and I simply don't have enough amount of evidence to report them in Spi. ] (]) 19:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::], why do you think the editors have to have made 200 edits before they can be reported? Some editors who have been blocked as sockpuppets have made 0 edits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The last editor, I've reported relating to sockpuppetry before this was ] had 71 edits. Looking at the contributions page of Kaloypangilinan and CindyMalena, I don't have much evidence aside from what I already posted here. I did notice the similar behavior of no communication in their respective talkpage and not using the edit summary. Like I said, I don't know how can a new account can locate this page ], since the user page of ] is empty and their talkpage don't have any posts that would direct new users to ]. I would need more evidence if I ever report something to SPI. I've only submitted reports in SPI, twice if I'm remembering correctly. ] (]) 20:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{u|Hotwiki}}, if you have enough evidence then you should report suspected sockpuppetry at ]. If you don't have enough evidence then you shouldn't report it anywhere. ] (]) 20:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I did make a mistake coming here about this issue, thats why I already withdrew this report. Also, I've only made two sockpuppet reports (if I remember correctly) which both were stressful for me. With Kaloypangilinan/CindyMalena, I just didn't want to go through the same process with fewer evidences, which is why I came here to ANI. ] (]) 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It sounds like @] is just looking for assurance that it's OK to take this to SPI with this evidence?
			:::::::Hotwiki, I'm not an admin or a checkuser, nor an expert on SPI, but you can always try submitting a report. It's easier if you use Twinkle. There isn't any rush to submit a report, you can take your time. ] (]) 20:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Thank you {{ping|Knitsey}}. For now, I don't feel confident filing a SPI report against CindyMalena/Kaloy Pangilinan. The last SPI case I made was stressful because the sockpuppeteer had several accounts. I ended up doing 2 reports which were both confirmed right. Last month, I reported a sockpuppeteer in ANI because they admitted it through their talkpage and it was connected to those two times I made a report in Spi. But this is a different case with Kaloypangilinan/CindyMalena. If I get more evidences in the future, I would go back to it and send it to SPI. Thank you for the suggestions and I'm sorry if I brought up my sockpuppet suspicious here, since this isn't the right place for that. ] (]) 21:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User Douglas1998A creating incorrect categories. ==
			{{atop|1=The pblock will continue until communication improves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Two weeks ago I opened ] on {{u|Douglas1998A}} creating and adding incorrect categories to pages, most notably on ] and ]. In November 2024, they created ] and added it to ] and ], even though they are not American telenovelas. The category was deleted but in December 2024, they created ] and added the previously mentioned pages to this new category when they are only Brazilian telenovelas and not American ones. . The category was deleted and the user created it once more today and added it to ] and ] again.
			The first time this issue was brought up to the noticeboard it was never resolved as the user ] after being notified of the discussion, and they have never bothered to reply back to messages on ]. How can this be resolved if the user continuously fails to engage in ]?] (]) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{ping|Sammi Brie}} Your take? ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pretty obviously a communication is required problem and also wrong. The telenovelas don't have any American production outside of one being dubbed into Spanish by a U.S. broadcaster, which does not count. ] (she/her • ] • ]) 19:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Has Douglas1998A done any positive work in Category space? Because if it's just warring over these two categories, they could be partially blocked from Categories unless their other work creating categories is fine. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Per Douglas1998A's talk page, two other categories created by them were nominated and deleted. These were: ] and ]. So I believe there it's more than just the Brazilian/Portuguese categories.
			:::I have also mentioned to Douglas1998A that pages should be placed in the most specific categories to which they belong. For example on ] they persistently added ], when the page is already in the subcategory ].
			:::Douglas1998A's lack of communication and reverting edits show they are unwilling to discuss and resolve the issues with their edits. ] (]) 21:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:A day has passed since the user was notified of this discussion. They have continued editing and have not bothered to reply. The user is ignoring the issue and it will once again be unresolved. ] (]) 18:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{User-blocked}} from article space per ]. Once the user begins commmunicating and adequately addresses these concerns, any admin is free to lift the block. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Bad redirects by User:StrexcorpEmployee ==
			{{atop|1=StrexcorpEmployee was blocked by Beeblebrox, and then unblocked by me with ] from most redirect creation/retargeting. Bugghost is warned for personal attacks in the form of repeated false allegations of sockpuppetry. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|StrexcorpEmployee}}
			I'd like to ask for a tban on making/changing redirects for StrexcorpEmployee, as they continue to make ridiculous redirects that waste community time.
			Examples include:
			* ] → ]
			* ] → ]
			* ] → ]
			* ] → ]
			* ] → ]
			Their talk page is completely full of notices that redirects they have made are being discussed/deleted, and they have , including a ] from {{u|Tamzin}} to stop making bad redirects.
			Also likely had , as in last year (and if not sockpuppettry, ] - calling them a "weirdo" "creep" "stalker" while mocking the sock's "]" redirect while defending their own "]" redirect).
			Preferably an indef block but a redirect TBAN would probably suffice. ]&nbsp;] 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've issued an indef block. The final warning was issued 29 months ago and ignored, like every other post to their talk pages. Willingness to communicate with other users is a requirement, not an option, and these redirects are so childish that they remind me of the ] saga. ] ] 20:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That was quick, thanks! ]&nbsp;] 20:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@]: My warning was for a specific kind of bad redirect creation, which has not recurred, although "United Rapes" bordered on vandalism, which is enough to make me think she shouldn't be creating redirects. I tend to think that StrexcorpEmployee is here in good faith and just has a bad sense of what makes a good redirect, and her unblock request seems reasonable. (There's also the sockpuppetry question, but two CUs ruled that unrelated, so I don't know where BugGhost is getting her "likely" being a sock.) What would you think of an unblock with a restriction limiting redirect creation to ]—if she'll agree to it? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Setting aside the question of blocking/unblocking, {{re|Bugghost|p=,}} I can't say I'm thrilled that you referred to my 2022 warning as a "final warning from Tamzin to stop making bad redirects", when I ] that it was narrower than that, nor at you calling SE likely a sock while linking to an SPI where two CUs cleared them—which is, to be clear, ]. I expect that someone filing at AN/I will disclose the full facts of a case, not just the ones favorable to their side, and definitely not a selective omission of exonerating evidence. Invoking NPA over calling an LTA a "creep" for impersonating them, in a comment six months ago, is also a Hell of a stretch. If you're going to bring someone to AN/I, bring them here with the facts that exist; don't manufacture controversy. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Honestly didn't mean to misquote you - your words were {{tq|If you create another redirect based on a SubredditSimulator post , where that is not a term that ''a human'' would plausibly use (as with ] and ]), or again create a vandalistic redirect for any other reason, I will block your account for vandalism. }} - I interpretted the phrasing "If you do X again I will block you" as a final warning. You're right that I shouldn't have used "bad" in replacement for "vandalistic" because they're not the same, sorry about that.
			::Regarding the SPI link, I wasn't trying to imply that the CU's were incorrect - I said the sockpuppet account was ], who was not mentioned at all by CU's there, but is a pretty obvious ]. I'm not trying to manufacture controversy here, I just saw a few bad redirects and looked around. ]&nbsp;] 22:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq| StrexcorpEmployee behaves differently from previous sockpuppets, and this sockmaster has a known history of joe jobs}} — ] in the SPI report for Smackarea. A clerk in that case, rather than a CU, but... well I may be biased as a former clerk, but a clerk saying someone isn't a sock is usually <em>more</em> exculpating than a CU saying it. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::], I think the conditions you lay out for an unblock are very reasonable. Let's hope ] sees this message today. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I was having lunch with my wife and driving around in the snow, just got back.
			:::::I'd be fine with an unblock with a tban on creating redirects, as they were creating stupid redirects as recently as yesterday, and frankly "United rapes" was enough on its own to have justified a block months ago. I'm somewhat astounded that some of these redirects went to RFD instead of being speedy deleted.
			:::::I do think they should be reminded as well that communication is part of what we are doing here, and not responding to messages on their talk pages until ''after'' they are blocked is not a good look. ] ] 22:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::And for the record socking was not in any way part of my reason for blocking, which I logged as "''Disruptive editing creating infantile vandalistic redirects, never responding to any communication on their talk page''" which I believe is accurate. ] ] 22:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Unblock per adequate unblock request. They did "make ridiculous redirects", but they did not "make ridiculous redirects that waste community time". Tamzin's warning was an "only warning", not a "final warning". Two out of five redirects listed were the subject of Tamzin's warning and outdated. SPI exonerated her, instead of finding her a likely sock. ] (]) 22:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::To clarify:
			::* All ridiculous redirects waste community time
			::* An only warning is also a final warning, by definition
			::* SPI exonerated her of being {{u|Heres The Dealio}}, which I'm not disputing, but made no conclusion about {{u|Smackarea}}, the only account I mentioned being a likely sock. But the sock is irrelevant in the grand scheme, so I'll drop it.
			::Either way, I'd be fine with a redirect tban instead of a block, if consensus is leaning that way. ]&nbsp;] 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]: You are simply incorrect. Sro23 found that she was not Smackarea on 25 July. It's not enough to say "I'll drop it" while repeating a fallacious statement even after you've been told you were wrong, so I'm going to make this a warning: Falsely accusing someone of sockpuppetry is a personal attack, and if you are unable to correctly read an SPI so as to understand which accusations have been verified or falsified, you should not be in the business of making sockpuppetry accusations, and certainly should not be doubling or tripling down when told you are wrong. On that note, I'll be closing this, as I've unblocked her. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Two editors and WineGUI ==
			{{atop
			| result = Danger89 indef'd per ]. Justcomic1 indef'd as an ] sock. ] (]/]) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	}}		}}
			*{{userlinks|Danger89}}
	{{cob}}
			*{{userlinks|Justcosmic1}}
	Taking "putting the fear of God into them" to a new level.''' —&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 07:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			*{{articlelinks|WineGUI}}
			Two editors, {{Noping|Danger89}} and {{noping|Justcosmic1}}, have been constantly pushing for what seems like a restoration of the ] article, which was changed to a redirect per an AFD I started, complete with a ]. Timeline of events:
			* I start the ], citing a genuine reason in the AFD that the article shows no importance or notability whatsoever. I did this after I started a PROD, which was reverted by Danger89 (they're a developer of WineGUI, I'll explain later).
			* In AFD, all editors unilaterally vote yes. Danger89 replies to almost all of them, giving a source of their GitLab page, and saying it's not primary. When asked why they are writing an article about their own product (aka ] violations), they just say something along the lines of, "I don't like it"
			* After the AFD is closed, I take a look at Danger89's user page. There, they state that they '''are''' indeed the developer of the app, so I leave them a notice about COI with a stern warning that they may be blocked if they continue to ignore COI rules. In response to this, an IP which can confidently be assumed to be Danger89 logged out just writes {{tq|block me}}, showing a disruptive attitude.
			* Danger89 cites a userbase number on the WineGUI talk page to which I reply that notability does not depend on things like that. Justcosmic1, within 3 edits, twists the PROD policy by saying that I knew there would be opposition (no I didn't), and saying that I have a beef with Danger89, failing to cite any evidence.
			* Danger89 blanks my userpage, to which I give a generic level 4 warning. After this, Justcosmic1 joins the conversation and writes a reply that looks like it was from Danger89. This appears to be their fourth edit, which looks extremely suspicious and like a sock (not making any allegations, but just saying). Their other 3 edits were on the WineGUI talk page.
			Also, Danger89 continually edited the WineGUI page while it was still up, further contravening COI rules. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:1.15em"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 01:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
			{{abot}}
			== Al-Naghawi page ==
	Non-free image are not allowed in Galleries per ] paragraph 4 - "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery" and ] #8 and #9. I have as of yet seen am exception give and justified for use of ] in galleries, and this page is no exception. There are several examples of Western paintings and 20th-century Western painting that can be used that are Pubic Domain, which are already on this page. There is no need to use these two Fair use images.
			*{{articlelinks|Al-Naghawi}}
			currently there is an edit issue going on with the Al-Naghawi page as information is being changed back and forth alongside the page's title name so I wish for admin intervention to resolve issues as sources are not being checked which are cited as they are irrelevant to the page. ] (]) 08:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Blocked user spamming their own talk page ==
	I have tried twice to remove two "Fair use images" from the Galleries ( and ) on this page only to have that edit reverted, by ] and ] so I have been forced to report the violation of ] guidelines, so that an Administrator can remove the images..--] (]/]) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|status=Called on the carpet|1=Blocked with TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:I'm in the process of fixing the problem. Next time use the talk page...] (]) 13:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Ramsha Carpets}}
	::Per your talk page, I'm supposed to "Stay off my page!". You tell me not to talk to you then you pretend that your willing to talk?--] (]/]) 13:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Use the article talk page...] (]) 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)		Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warning. —]] 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The key word in that policy is "may". The visual arts project has had this problem before and they have rightfully argued that in all of these schools of art articles that cover multiple centuries to use a limited number of examples (sourced in text as key examples of the school). As long as we're talking one or two images, that's fine to have them in galleries. We don't want galleries that are full of non-free, though but that's not what is happening here. --] (]) 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree...] (]) 13:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I do not see the word "may", the rule is clear.
	:::#] paragraph 4 "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery". I have had this issue before on a page that I wanted to use "Fair use images".
	:::#]: Unacceptable use - The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8).
	::: This very Notice board ruled that the images are not needed as there are multiple examples on the very page that can express the example that are Public domain, meaning that there use is in violation of ] guidelines, since they are replaceable. I'm not making these rules up, they have been enforce on me in the past.--] (]/]) 13:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::You may want to read what you quoted, the words "may" and "generally" are used. Just like every other policy + guideline, NFC is subject to IAR, and in limited cases it is reasonable to include contemporary works alongside examples of works in the PD on these school pages simply to avoid bias, as long as the number selected are few and well-documented as representations within the contemporary period. --] (]) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Exactly as Masem stated. "May" is the key word (and it's right there, in the first sentence you quote). Paragraph 4 is part of Wiki policy, however there is clearly flexibility given the wording and there are exceptions to that rule. The spirit of that paragraph is to limit whole pages of images with little or no text. Articles on art history, particularly core topics like ] require galleries of images and flexibility when it comes to fair use. No one is advocating umpteen fair use images but showing a progression of images is part of art history and is necessary to the topic for an encyclopedia. Low-res images used sparingly fall under fair use and can be used. But instead of discussing the issue, ] chose to revert my revert (whatever happened to ]?) and then file a report. Kinda missed the ''discuss'' portion, unless I'm mistaken. ]] 13:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	**And could you link where the notice board discussion took place? I've never seen it and would be interested. Thank you. ]] 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::] says ''"Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of analysis or criticism)."'' But we do have ''"analysis or criticism"'' in these two articles. It is a matter of interpretation as to how specific or extensive the ''"analysis or criticism"'' should be. But it is hard to describe visual art by verbal means alone. These are in most cases primarily visual entities (paintings, sculptures). In my opinion it is arguable that the image (of the painting for instance) is of importance that is equal to or greater than its verbal counterpart found in the text of the article. Let us just say that the two go hand-in-hand. The verbal text and the visual image referred-to, complement one another. ] (]) 15:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::FWIW for years I've worked very hard keeping them to a minimum...] (]) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	* ] has 38 non-free usages and ] has 39 (or did as of the last database report). Whilst obviously a tricky article in which to keep the number down, that sounds excessive to me. Indeed, on the whole of Misplaced Pages, only ] has more (46). ] (]) 21:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*For the 20th century article, that's 39 out of 121 total. I do not see how the article would be intelligible without that many, and a very good case could be made that even so,latest 3/4 of the period is grossly under-represented, especially the most recent years. . For the general article, it's 38 out of 233--mostly duplicates of the ones in the 20th c. article. A case could be made for reducing that by perhaps 1/3, and relying on the link to the more detailed article. ''']''' (]) 01:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:I've pulled TPA as well, since they can't help spamming, apparently. -- ] (]) 09:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Edit warring ==
			::Thank you. —]] 09:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Magian Priest's Descendant - egregious personal attacks ==
	I made some to ] which were with bad faith (and clearly false) edit summaries such as . We're getting into 3RR territory now. I explained my edits to him on his talk page but he with the edit summary "pityfull timewasters". I most certainly have not introduced errors or degraded the article and I feel that it is unacceptable for him to say this. We have a recent history with ] article in which I criticized him for his inappropriate tagging, but he thinks I'm picking on him in return now which isn't true. The edits I made were not damaging in anyway but simply improved the quality of prose. He has since left a nasty message on my talk page accusing me of POV pushing and being "the most pityfull editor on wikipedia".♦ ] 13:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I think I'm on friendly terms with both editors, and am trying not to step on anyone's toes--but Banner, there is no need for that. I can't see what the mistake is that Dr. Blofeld supposedly introduced, but this "pitiful" stuff, come on. ] (]) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	** It wasn't the best of copyedits :S I fixed it up a little bit. But, yeh, rather an overreaction! --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, well I was just focusing on the rewording of the parts.♦ ] 14:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	It appears to be some form of reverse psychology. If it makes him feel better, sure, I'm a pitiful editor.♦ ] 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::<small>Could may be just a breakdown in translations? Jat.</small> <font face="Georgia">]<sub>]</font> 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Well, it would be a translation of "zielig", a wonderful word, but just as inappropriate. ] (]) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I wish it was, but sadly this isn't the case. He seems to think I'm the most dreadful, unreasonable most "pityfull" editor on here who is at war with him. Actually I appreciate the work he does on restaurants (even if I'd prefer it if he tried to make them start class) and simply made some minor copyedits to his new articles in good faith. If I'd wanted to be nasty I'd have slopped tons of tags over them and degraded his work in edit summaries. And it's not as if I can amicably confront him...♦ ] 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Hmmm, <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{userlinks|Magian Priest's Descendant}}
	On the talk page he says to Errant "Please keep in mind that the stray capitals and strange sentences are not my work, but work from another editor. He prefers to edit war over it, so let him be happy with his mess. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 13:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC) . The proof is there that Head chef was capitalized when he started the article, yet he claims that it was "my mess". Frankly I find such false claims and belligerent behaviour disturbing, and if he really has a history of overreacting to everything like this I'm surprised that he hasn't been officially cautioned by now.♦ ] 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I think now you've overreacted there :) because "Head chef" was correctly capitalised in his version, and your c/e introduced the problem. Not that I'm defending his stance, it's easy to do when your tidying up sentence structure (and your reads better), done it loads of times myself. Just sayin' Maybe just both of you disengage for a bit --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I see, indirectly because I added "The" Head chef before it and it was originally the start of the new sentence. But I didn't introduce the capital letter.. It's very minor stuff though isn't it?♦ ] 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:The truth is that it is more common to have a capital in the first word of a sentence. The truth is also that you started checking and tagging my articles after my tagging of ] on which you replied with: ''I've removed your invalid and rather bad faith tags from the Dorchester Hotel article which is still in the process of being expanded. Did you even bother to read the article? Shall I tag Four Seasons Hotel Dublin for the same reason, it has about the same level of "coi, peacock, advertising" as you put it.'' To my opinion, 100% revenge.
	:And finally, I had already moved on, Dr. Blofeld clearly not. So he popped up on two of my newest articles. Let me make it clear: I don't like the style of response of Dr. Blofeld so I try to avoid him. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	Er, no, it was to prove my point that I certainly ''wouldn't'' tag the Dublin hotel article even though it had the same level of COI or "peacock" in it. I think the language barrier is such that you don't really understand sarcasm and misinterpret a lot of things, I've noticed the same thing from a lot of other non native English speaking editors on here, although Drmies who I believe is also a native Dutch speaker certainly appears to have a 100% fluent grasp of English and its perks. You'd get a much sweeter response if you stopped running about the site Banner making OTT edits and comments about people. Your very first edit on the Dorchester amounted to excessive tag spamming which was not done in the spirit of wikipedia. You dismissed my initial message to you as telling me I was making a "joke of myself" or something to that effect..You persisted with comments like . ♦ ] 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Aggressive tagging of seven of my articles within an hour is also against the spirits of Misplaced Pages. And an edit like only proved to me that you was looking for revenge. I don't want to spend time on that game. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I created ] for the very reason that all articles with no publisher or source details should be filled out in details and I ''never'' visit an article which has expand ref requirements without leaving it. Yes, it is true that I came across your articles on your user page, but if the articles I visited had sourcing like your current ones I would not have tagged them at all (even though I could pick holes in them if I wanted to and question the quality; we're not a restaurant directory). So don't think that you've been victimized over it, but your sourcing does have issues on a lot of the articles you've listed on your user page and unlike yourself I don't add tags to articles without a very good reason. If I was to truly be "seeking revenge" I'd put half of your restaurants up for AFD and plaster unwarranted tags over them and leave scathing edit summaries. It just isn't my style, I hold no grudges, and my recent edits have not been in any way an attack as your perceive them to be. And I've rewarded you in the past for your efforts to improve restaurant coverage and still continue to support your efforts in doing so, although in light of what you've done I really don't think you deserve to be rewarded from myself and am surprised that you still continue to value an award from a "pitiful editor".♦ ] 16:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*'''My''' articles, Banner? I thought the articles were everyone's? I was mildly involved at the Dorchester article, with Banner being aggressive in his reverting and approach. - ] (]) 15:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::"My articles" as in written by me and for which I feel a special responsibility to watch over them. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Perhaps you two could agree to stay away from each other, and each others' articles, for a few days. Tag bombing the Dorchester was uncool. Retaliating on 7 of The Banner's articles was uncool. Complaining about aggressive tagging when you just did it yourself is uncool. "Taking back" a barnstar was kind of uncool. Name calling is uncool. You two don't seem to be able to edit constructively together right now, so maybe editing on different articles would be good.--] (]) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::No problem. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Not sure exactly how I I retaliated Floq. I even improved the sourcing on a few of them by filling them out and added some content like . And tag bombing with Advert, COI, Peacock etc is hardly exactly the same as adding a single expand ref template in the referencing section like ]. Have you looked at the sourcing of a lot of the articles on his user page? Could I have completely avoided his articles? Yes. But I wouldn't be acting appropriately if I visited an article and didn't make an effort to try to get the sourcing to be improved. Visit ] for instance, isn't it ''obvious'' that the references need filling out with basic publisher and title details? How is it aggressive tagging so apply a ref fill in the references section? I do this regularly on any article, whoever the author is, and I once made a request to get a bot to try to apply them to all articles and fill them out. That's constructive not destructive. Believe me, if I was retaliating I'd have put them up for AFD and applied COI tags to them, especially ]. As I say I have no issues with him, but if he's going to revert good faith edits to his articles and accuses me of things which aren't true, ''then'' I don't take too kindly to it. I could quite happily improve some of his articles on restaurants and enjoy doing so as hotels and restaurants interest me, so to avoid editing his articles just because he can't accept myself I think is a bit extreme. I'm quite capable of working with most people, but it requires mutual respect..♦ ] 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	''' Reply ''' - Banner has called me a "lazy cow", and has been uncivil to myself on multiple occasions. I can list examples when I get to a computer. --] (]) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*Looking back over your he did seem to make an extreme number of TFD spam messages back in June. All I know is that he comes across as a rather extreme editor and I don't think it is healthy to operate like this on wikipedia, but it's pretty common. I'm surprised that he's never been officially warned or blocked for making such remarks or for spamming people warnings.♦ ] 17:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Don't forget to tell about the topic ban you got due to the "quality" of your work on templates last May. ] <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I don't want to get too sidetracked here or indicate that this is a "let's grill Banner" thread. But I am concerned Banner with some of your edits in articles and behaviour following them which seem like overreactions, especially your perception of my edits on this article which really were intended to be constructive. I feel certain you've done this sort of thing before and will continue to do so again. I think it basically comes down to AGF, and you'd find that if you treat an editor such as myself with respect instead of "pitiful" you'd find that I'd reflect it back at you and things would run a lot a smoother. I'm not sure what it would take to indicate to you that I do not have malicious intent towards you, but some of your edit summaries and comments today do nothing to improve things for you on here. As I say I'm interested in restaurant articles and would be willing to work on a restaurant you consider important and show to you that I'm not the sort of character and editor that you think I am and can be quite reasonable and constructive if the atmosphere isn't hostile.. ♦ ] 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::What's with the inverts on "quality" Banner? Looking at the diffs provided above, you come across as quite an odious person. Your reverts on Blofeld were conducted in bad faith and he was correct in bringing this to ANI. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::The quality issues were about the work of Jax, not about Blofeld. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 18:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::''' Reply ''' -
	:::::# I'm not going to beat the dead Topic Ban horse to death again (water under the bridge now), as the Topic Ban limits what I say here. My quality has improved dramatically, and The Banner has on numerous occasions used XfD as cleanup for topics with ample information.
	:::::# Here is the example of The Banner calling me a "lazy cow" and making an inflammatory comment:<br>].
	:::::# Here is the example of The Banner about to call me "":<br>] --] (]) 18:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	Seems to come down to a distinct lack of respect and AGF to others I think. He appears to have some sort of natural resentment of people in general or fails to see that others are often acting in good faith.♦ ] 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I think the above statement by {{U|Dr. Blofeld}} is an accurate summary. Over at least the past two years, The Banner (formerly The Night of the Big Wind) has demonstrated very aggressive commenting in discussions, especially all those related to the notability of schools, and has not heeded even the many, most polite requests to moderate his tone. He does not appear to realise that his manner of collaboration will not gain traction for his arguments, and at best will be largely ignored. His failure to gain consensus has also led him to mount campaigns of mass nominations at AfD in attempts to prove his point. I fail to understand why a user who is so concerned for the quality of our articles can take pleasure in being so unpleasant. Due to the apparent inability to understand the comments of others and reacting with indignation, I am inclined to believe that there may be a linguistic issue because many users' comments are taken out of context, and replied to impolitely and with gross inaccuracy. I have occasionally considered filing an RFC/U, but refrained each time from doing so in the hope that his interactions with others would improve. As far as I can recall, I have never threatened them with any admin action. ] (]) 00:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	''' Reply ''' - The Banner has used my talk page ] to vent days after a topic ban prohibiting me from resolving the issue was imposed. I have tried to explain that when mistakes are made over a long period of time, that once they are found, correcting those mistakes can be a large undertaking, and that the reality is that we are where we are. Nevertheless, I received another message ]. --] (]) 02:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:You do seem to have created rather a lot of templates that have since been deleted. Whether or not you have tried to rectify this or whether or not you are under a topic ban from addressing the situation is not something I have looked into. Nevertheless, I see that The Banner resorts to his characteristic caustic comments, which reinforces the fact that what {{U|Dr. Blofeld}} has reported here is only the tip of the iceberg. ] (]) 04:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	== Blocking of Keeler4586 ==
	Hi,
	I am requesting that user Keeler4586 be blocked as he/she is devoted to promoting products, and is recreating deleted articles minutes after speedy deletion as can be seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Keeler4586 . Thanks, ] (]) 16:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	: I have the user with a gentler message than an immediate block. Perhaps it might be best to wait and see if the gentler message is heeded prior to taking the blunt object action. <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			Also violated ] at ] , refusing to use the talk page (whose comments shows that they either have ] issues or are trolling). --] (]) 10:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Mass rollbacks required ==
			:While not strictly a 3RR violation (note the last diff is a different edit) but absolutely edit-warring, and when combined with the personal attacks in the edit-summaries, have blocked them for 24 hours. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks The Bushranger! ] (]) 11:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Non-neutral paid editor ==
	We've been hit pretty heavily by a spambot. I know some admins have scripts for mass rollback (believe it or not, as many of them as I do, I don't have a script). This is bigger than manual techniques can handle.
			@] 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)
	*{{userlinks|188.217.203.245}}
	*{{userlinks|61.15.46.216}}
	*{{userlinks|27.3.85.26}}
	*{{userlinks|84.43.147.53}}
	*{{userlinks|176.202.105.40}}
	*{{userlinks|117.239.64.166}}
	*{{userlinks|117.223.161.182}}
	*{{userlinks|87.110.16.100}}
	*{{userlinks|89.132.64.81}}
	*{{userlinks|78.98.25.91}}
	*{{userlinks|89.34.75.123}}
	*{{userlinks|189.34.9.60}}
	*{{userlinks|186.19.57.19}}
	*{{userlinks|188.251.236.114}}
	*{{userlinks|87.223.115.147}}
	*{{userlinks|83.157.124.218}}
	*{{userlinks|90.163.51.63}}
	*{{userlinks|85.66.241.59}}
	*{{userlinks|89.36.214.186}}
	*{{userlinks|95.168.56.11}}
	*{{userlinks|117.215.1.168}}
	*{{userlinks|187.208.150.144}}
	*{{userlinks|78.142.126.177}}
	*{{userlinks|105.236.16.88}}
			:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
	&mdash;](]) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
			:* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
			:* - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
			:* Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
			:An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably ]. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. ] (]) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::done ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] reasons for them.
			::#By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as ''"has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world"'' and ''"The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality"'' + ''"The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"?'' Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate ] and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a '''very''' strong statement cited to..., seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
			::#Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally ], and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. '''If''' that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, '''then''' it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
			::#Do you '''really''' think phrases like ''"China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments."'' are consistent with ]? '''Really?''' ''Maybe'' cutting '''all''' of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
			::# That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently . It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.
			::In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably ]" seems downright ]. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns ? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a ] and ] manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that ] is supposed to prevent. --] (]) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like ], you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't ''bad'' by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply ''not good enough'' or ''relevant enough'' for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.
			::::Given ''this'' context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not ''obligated'' to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. ] (]) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @]'s paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @] provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
			:My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. ] (]) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::''Adding'': Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 ] (]) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*An editor with a declared COI should ''never'' be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the {{tq|strongly discouraged}} wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:] So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this {{redacted|]}}?
			*:Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that '''if''' is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering '''is not even seen anywhere on their front page''' - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as . The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. ] (]) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban)}} - that would be wrong. See ]; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we ''want'' editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read ], and especially ] Having a ''perspective'' on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. ] editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then ] needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.
			::::It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah ] editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that ''every'' edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it ''strictly'' barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --] (]) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{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)
	add
			*:@] - 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)
	*{{userlinks|5.57.115.197}}
			*::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)
	*{{userlinks|2.237.28.78}}
			*:::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)
	*{{userlinks|84.232.235.130}}
			*::::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)
	&mdash;](]) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (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 ===
	add
			: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.
	*{{userlinks| 41.228.51.25}}
			: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|89.228.46.37}}
			: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.
	*{{userlinks|60.50.51.210}}
			:P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{userlinks|190.57.181.70}}
			::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)
	*{{userlinks|62.63.132.36|}}
			:::See ]... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
	*{{userlinks|122.178.159.163}}
			:::All of this is pertinent. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{userlinks|178.79.34.86}}
			::::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.
	*{{userlinks|109.175.88.133}}
			::::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.
	*{{userlinks|190.244.69.154}}
			::::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)
	&mdash;](]) 17:12, 17 September 2013 (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)
	:No. ] actually is a web service for archiving URLs. See ]. ] (]) 17:46, 17 September 2013 (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)
	::So under what circumstances do you think it's acceptable to anonymously run a bot over open proxies?&mdash;](]) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::as per {{redacted|]}} is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
	:::Given that {{user|RotlinkBot}} was not approved, and the history of the site, I think blacklisting and mass removal is appropriate. ] (]) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::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)
	::Glad to hear it, since I personally undid about twenty of the edits before going out (they appear all done now?). Cheers! <font face="Georgia">]<sub>]</font> 18:12, 17 September 2013 (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)
	::::Thanks for the link: that's clearly what this is. {{userlinks|Rotlink}} is bypassing the block on his unapproved bot by using anonymous proxies for the edits.&mdash;](]) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. ]&thinsp;] 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Now using open proxies to direct traffic to your site ''is'' problematic. ] (]) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*::They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that {{user|EMsmile}} has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is '''also not on'''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::... 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)
			=== Does Wikimedian in Residence apply? ===
	They aren't "all done", ]. I've blocked all the above IPs for three months. The edit filter keeps reporting new ones trying. It occurs to me that this may be a gadget of some kind (as opposed to proxies), as Rotlink has apparently released one on Romanian Misplaced Pages. That doesn't seem likely, though.&mdash;](]) 18:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit wikipedia seems analagous to . See also ]. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no ]. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. ] (]) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? ] (]) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	OK, ](])- I'll get back on the case? No probs. I just checked the next few from where I left it (an hour before) and didn't see any current edits from the bot. Makes sense? <font face="Georgia">]<sub>]</font> 18:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			::I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. ] (]) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:My situation is totally different to @]. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @] adjusting the page '''to favour her client''' (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. ] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the ] article ]. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per ].
			::Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding ]- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.
			::Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. ] (]) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. ] (]) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile ===
	@{{ul|Kww}} ''et al.'': To check my understanding: the problem here is that these links are being added by some sort of unauthorized bot and/or blocked user, not that the archive.is links are inherently bad? If so, I assume there's no objection to manually restoring some of these links after manually verifying that they're correct and suitable? —]_] 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I don't have a problem with that, but I'd wait a bit before I got started in case somebody finds something out about archive.is that isn't obvious to me.&mdash;](]) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:This is what I think as well. ] (]) 18:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			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. ] (]) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	I noticed this link addition happening during RC patrol and wasn't sure what to think. I tested a random link and found that the old version was broken, but the new archive.is version worked. After that, I didn't interfere. I did another test just now from the list above, and again the archive.is change made a broken link functional. As the scale has certainly been disconcerting, though, I'm glad you folks are looking into it. From what's said above, I assume that massive linking to a single site should be reported, whether or not the results are apparently benign. Is that right? ] (]) 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Also, if I see fresh archive.is links being added, what action would you like me to take? Should I revert the changes or not? Should I report the IP making the changes, and if so, should I do it here or at AIV? ] (]) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::This has been noticed on a ''lot'' of aircraft articles - on the ones I've seen, it's always been replacing a USAF Factsheet that was on af.mil with the archive.is version. The catch is that the factsheets actually still exist, just moved to a different address - more constructive would be repairing the link instead of bypassing it with an archive. Regardless of whether or not archive.is is a valid archive, though, the scope and means of this merit a ] and re-doing from scratch, I think. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I saw this the other day and was going to bring it here, but I checked out the links and they seemed to work as an archive site, so didn't bother. These edits are all over Misplaced Pages, on a very large scale. Thanks. ] (]) 20:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*{{user|Quebec99}} uses the same edit summary. &mdash;] 21:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	*{{checkip|1=117.199.101.226}}
			:'''Oppose block, support ]ing EMS for almost ], ]ing AJL for aggressive interactions, 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.
	*{{checkip|1=42.113.28.153}}
			: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)
			* '''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)
	*{{checkip|1=42.114.9.233}}
			*:{{tq|made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit}}: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.<br>I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. ] (] · ]) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I'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)
			== User:CoastRedwood - Harassment ==
	&mdash;] 22:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocked for a week and warned not to do this. Good grief. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Blocked and reverted the three IPs. Not convinced on Quebec99 at all: that looks to be an editor that his actually correcting web references and describes that with an edit summary of "corrected web reference".&mdash;](]) 22:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|CoastRedwood}}
	:: I am not a bot! I am using this page to see what is broke, finding the correct reference if it exists, and fixing it. Is that somehow wrong? ] (]) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
			Repeated personal attacks, harassment and not following behavior policies by CoastRedwood. Despite multiple warnings from multiple editors to address the behavior, CoastRedwood has edited other users' pages, engaged in personal attacks, made uncivil comments and is not willing to heed constructive feedback. Personal attacks/harassment - , , and editing others' userpages' , , , , , . ] (]) 13:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Not at all. You just happened to be using the same edit summary as a bot, and someone pointed that out for investigation. As you can see above, I figured out that it was a coincidence.&mdash;](]) 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
			:Yeah, that's not great. A weird ] mentality toward... emojis? Mentions of anthromorphic foxes? And, frankly, the specific personal attack of ''degenerate'' used in that specific context is... it suggests a disruptive editing mindset. I don't know. Maybe their non-disruptive work on animal species has enough value that we don't go directly to a ] block (though I am on the fence about that) but, at the very least, they need a topic ban from editing other editors user pages. ] (]) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Regardless of the merits or demerits of "archive.is", proxies are being used. This is not an above board and honest method. It is flagrant sockpuppetry and gaming the system. Such massive edits should be approved beforehand. Blacklisting URLs, even good ones, is the conventional way to deal with linkspam. It forces the person behind this to seek to whitelist the URL, and then they can be instructed to describe what and why they are doing this and to seek permission to do it on such a large scale. Whitelisting can then occur if an agreement is reached. Of course they should be blocked for engaging in such flagrant sockpuppetry and block evasion in the first place. -- ] (]) 04:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:What's the point? We block the user responsible, but when he can use such a wide range of IP addresses, there's no real point to blocking any of them; we'd have to rangeblock the whole Internet in order to prevent him editing entirely. Much better to use the spam blacklist against the edits and the block tool against the human, as it's much simpler than telling the network to refuse traffic from the whole world and getting sent to ] as a result. ] (]) 05:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			::This is being dealt with on CoastRedwood's talk page by sysops, and escalating it to AN/I is premature.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It never hurts to block a proxy. Right now, edit filter 559 is preventing the spam runs, and it looks like his proxy list is exhausted. The problem with popping it straight onto the spam blacklist is that it prevents articles that have the link from being edited easily by anyone, even editors that aren't adding the link and have no clue about this problem.If we decide to blacklist the archive for regular editors, we need a cleanup bot. It looks to me like we have tens of thousands of articles with links right now. It's going to take a bot to extract them all, and ''then'' we can use the spam blacklist.&mdash;](]) 06:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:::Please see the timeline of the edits made. CoastRedwood is still approaching both the editors after two admins have already tried explaining it to him. was made recently after multiple warnings. ] (]) 14:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks for pointing out that diff. I didn't see it. That was after my formal warning, so I went ahead and blocked them for a week just now. –] <small>(])</small> 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Thanks everyone! I'm not sure what caused this user to make such remarks against ArkHyena and I; also thankful for the quick actions taken while I was a bit busy. Some of the content they removed from my userpage was only intended to promote humor and just for a little fun, and their rationales for it sound questionable, at the least. ~ ] ] 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ah, but that was your first mistake. You see, fun is not allowed on here :P
			::<sup><sub>]</sub></sup>
			::] (]) 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:Earl Andrew ==
			{{atop|1=Heat exceeding light. Legend of 14 is advised that ANI is the ''last'' resort for dispute resolution, not the first, and in the future should exhaust other options before coming here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|Earl Andrew}}
			Earl Andrew is using personal attacks against me for leaving notices on ]. It is interfering in those discussions.
			Diffs:
			*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269826037
			*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269826716
			] (]) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Did you try discussing with Earl Andrew about supposed personal attacks before coming here? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::No I did not. How does one respond directly to disrespectful comments and accusations of bad faith, followed by a suggestion that you should do their job under ] on wikipedia, because I have no idea what to say to them. I wouldn't normally resort to ANI over these comments, but in my opinion these comments are inferring in discussions on ]. ] (]) 16:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would ask for an apology directly if I was getting personally attacked. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I felt like asking for an apology in this case would likely escalate the disputes in question, and could be seen as provocative in this case. ] (]) 17:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Does opening an ANI thread for {{tq|urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems}} not escalate the disputes in question? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I don't think anything I've done in this thread could be seen as taunting or baiting. I think a reply like "Please apologize for your personal attack" would be seen as taunting. ANI escalates the dispute, but in a way that did not unreasonably increase the chance of incivility. ] (]) 17:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Neither of those is a personal attack. The second is more critical of you than the first, but still a long ways from an attack.--] (]) 16:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Accusing me of making bad faith edits, without offering any evidence to support bad intentions is a personal attack. The first diff is more of a disrespectful comment than a personal attack, I could've been more clear. Both comments are bad for the discussion. ] (]) 16:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You are removing non contentious information from a lot of articles, and claiming they are contentious. That to me feels like bad faith editing. Up for interpretation for sure, but in no way did I mean it as a personal attack. -- ] - ] 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Provide diffs. I can't respond to unsubstantiated claims. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Why were you deleting ]'s birthplace? ] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Can you please explain how this question relates to the topic of Earl Andrew's comments? If understand why you're asking the question I'll be able to give a better answer. ] (]) 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I see no personal attacks in the diffs you provided. I would say that Earl calling you a {{tq|destructive force}} wasn't very ], but ] tells me that those comments weren't "personal" attacks. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::"These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
			::::-]
			::::I never called him a "destructive force". ] (]) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Sorry, I misread your comment. The quote from WIAPA still stands. ] (]) 17:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I agree, that might have been a personal attack, but also please read ]. ANI should have been the last resort for you. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::See above comments for why I did not think I had other options. Also, see how even after being aware that I found the comments insulting/disparaging, the user continued to make them without substantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Earl_Andrew-20250116171300-Legend_of_14-20250116164200. ] (]) 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::''Insulting or disparaging'' is very different than having a disagreement. While WIAPA is ''not exhaustive'', neither of those diffs area anywhere in the same ballpark as the other examples -- this is a million miles away from {{tq|Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based (common discrimination classes)}}, {{tq|Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people}} or threats. There is no incivility in asking "how is something contention", even if it is prefixed with "how on earth"... If you feel insulted or disparaged because someone questioned the validity of your contributions, you need to grow a thicker skin. Also did you even read the section on top about ''Before posting''? Which of those have you actually attempted before coming here? Also as someone else has mentioned you should be cautioned about boomerang, meaning that your own actions also have a spotlight on them and you have volunteered put your own edits and conduct up for scrutiny. ]&thinsp;] 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::No one has linked to any of my edits here. There's a difference between some criticizing an identified edit and making disparaging remarks about unidentified edits by a named editor. I can't defend the edits that the user has a problem with because they have not been clearly identified with me. When an edit I made that was identified was brought up here, I did my best to answer the questions.
			::::::I did not raise every issue here on the users talk page. When I tried to raise issues on the editor's talk page see ], I got called unconstructive. When I went to the forum ], the editor escalated by disparaging me as editing in bad faith. I had reason to believe that further discussion on the talk page would go nowhere, so I posted here under ], instead of making what I felt would almost certainly be another unproductive talk page discussion. Given that since making this notice, the user has continued to make unsubstantiated claims about my character, I think I had the correct judgement. ] (]) 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You have not addressed the question how the diffs you provided of EA's behavior is anywhere in the ballpark of the criteria of WIAPA. You were the one who claimed as such, so the onus is on you to substantiate in what way where their comments violating the policy on personal attacks. I would even have a hard time considering them uncivil, but even if they were, uncivility is quite a different matter than a personal attack. So which aspects of ] do you feel EA's comments closely resemble? ]&thinsp;] 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I believe the comments about me acting in bad faith are disparaging remarks about me and therefore qualify as personal attacks. ] (]) 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I also think the comment about "How in the world" is an insult against me given the context is, it was promptly followed by another comment by the same user accusing me of bad faith. I hope this explanation is satisfactory. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Suggesting my statements are a "personal attack" on you carries about the same weight as me suggesting this whole discussion is a personal attack against ''me''. You are grasping at straws. If you're going to pick fights with everyone who dares cross your path (I see you've bombarded ]'s talk page now), you may find yourself blocked. And no, that's not a threat, ''I'' am not going to block you, as that would be a conflict of interest.-- ] - ] 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The only possibilities here are "extremely stupid" or "troll". Either way it's a clear case of disruptive editing. I suppose I can't do the banning myself either, now. Oh well. ] (]) 21:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I finding Dispute resolution confusing. This convo should be closed because I didn't try to resolve all my disputes with you first, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Bushranger-20250116213500-Legend_of_14-20250116190800. But, also now that I'm trying to resolve concerns as I become aware of them with another user outside of ANI, I should also be blocked for that. Don't use ANI, use the talk page for all issues first, but also don't keep posting on the talk page. Can you please clearly state the process I should go through to resolve disputes? ] (]) 21:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I'm not suggesting you should be blocked, I'm saying that if you continue with this petty behaviour, someone will inevitably block you. Learn from this experience and stop trying to pick fights with people.-- ] - ] 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I'm not trying to start fights with others though. I've never directly commented on another's character. I've tried to focus on the content of the articles or discussion pages comments, not why such actions were done or the character of the person doing them, and on the relevant policies. What are you saying I should do differently? ] (]) 22:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::You do realize you were the one who instigated this ANI case, correct? You're actually lodging a formal complaint about a different editors behavior. It's a little late to suggest you're simply an innocent bystander. ]&thinsp;] 22:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::I'm not saying I'm a bystander. I'm not the one who made uncivil comments on ], which is what started this "fight". ] (]) 22:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I have no opinion on this dispute, but just in case you're unaware, the behavior of anyone participating in these threads, whether as someone who's reporting, being reported, or even just commenting, may be scrutinized for wrongdoing. See ]. ] (]) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'll give the answer here I gave on ], I removed uncited claims about immigration status. To add additional information beyond what I said there, Canada's immigration system has somewhat recent come under fire for being used to suppress wage growth https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/temporary-immigration-programs-are-pushing-down-wage-growth-in-canada-economists-say/, so I removed the uncited content because for that reason it could be considered contentious. ] (]) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think it is relevant to include an instance on ] where the user says they're "suspicious of this user's true intentions", without linking to any edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Earl_Andrew#c-Earl_Andrew-20250116180500-Tarlby-20250116174800 This happened after I initiated the ANI. ] (]) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], what sort of resolution are you seeking here? Because so far, while some editors acknowledge that Earl Andrew could have been more civil, no one has agreed with you that these are personal attacks. Are you looking for validation, an apology, a chance to vent, or some kind of sanction because the latter won't be happening based on the response here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Another user has agreed that these could be personal attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Corvette_ZR1-20250116174800-Legend_of_14-20250116173700. I was hoping for a retraction of all the unsubstantiated claims about me acting in bad faith and comments that the user is suspicious of my intentions and an interaction ban with me, and a restriction against making comments about my character anywhere on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That is not going to happen. is not ''remotely'' a personal attack. could be more ] but is ''also'' not a personal attack. And again, you '''must''' attempt to resolve issues '''before''' coming to ANI, which you by your own admission chose not to do. Strongly suggest this be closed as there is nothing to do here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Chronic refusal to comply re edit summaries/copious, tendentious editing ==
			Despite years of requests by numerous editors to leave edit summaries, ] makes another apology, another promise, leaves cursory remarks for a minority of their edits for a short while, then back to highly prolific editing with no explanations. (Raised repeatedly in ] (most recently ]), (blanked, apparently in a botched archiving attempt) and ].)
			This would be problematic if the edits were not contentious but a high proportion are. Currently they are . (See again the iterations of their talk pages referred to above, ] and ], re OR, inaccurate citation, excessively lengthy quotes, overwhelming articles with peripheral or off-topic material, neutrality concerns, primary and self-published sources, ENGVAR, MOS, slow warring, blanking of maintenance tags, editorialising, anachronism.)
			] but closed down after , later when there was no compliance.
			The abundance and extent of edits and the almost total omission of explanation makes it impossible to assess the editor's copious work. If the much-repeated excuse of absent-mindedness is to be taken seriously, it indicates instead a significant and chronic competence issue. They either have no ability or no intention to engage meaningfully to explain their editing. ] (]) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I haven't looked into this in detail but I warned K1ngstowngalway1 about edit summaries on 25 November 2024, got a promise to improve, and note that they are still only using edit summaries occasionally and omitting them for substantial edits, eg {{Diff|Jacobitism|prev|1269555399}},{{Diff|Jacobitism|prev|1269553173}},{{Diff|William Davies (priest)|1268928050}}, to pick just three recent ones. ] <small>(])</small> 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::For more regarding problematic editing at Jacobitism, see ]. ] (]) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Block request: IP user edit-warring and not discussing edits. ==
			{{atop
			| result = IP warned against edit warring. ] (]/]) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			IP user ] is engaging in edit-warring on ] regarding the vehicle being either "operational" or "under-development." Another user started a discussion on the talk page and I participated in it and referenced the discussion when reverting the IP user's edit. The IP user has since reverted the edit again and not participated in the discussion. I can't contact this user further as they are not on an account and do not want to continue an edit-war. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			{{abot}}
			== User:PopPunkFanBoi69 is being highly disruptive (battleground, attacks, edit war) ==
			{{atop
			| result = Blocked. SPI still open. ] (]/]) 02:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)<br><br>To noone's surprise, PopPunkFanBoi69 was indeed a sock. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			{{userlinks|PopPunkFanBoi69}}
			I'm not sure that User:PopPunkFanBoi69 is ]. Their edit history consists of a lot of unsourced content additions/changes, such as ], ]. They have made talk page posts that are personal attacks or ] style, such as ] (battleground), ] (attack).
			Despite being warned by ] (]) for edit warring on ']', they continue to restore their edits without consensus (]).
			One final thing that made me proceed to making this AN/I report: check out ] on User:PopPunkFanBoi69's talk page, here's a quote from that: {{tq|This is why I fucking hate editing Misplaced Pages because multiple accounts that have been blocked & having to create a new account!}} This suggests to me that this is a sockpuppet account, although I don't know about this user and their previous accounts.
			Either way, I see numerous policy violations here, such as civility, edit warring and potential violation of the multiple accounts policy. —&nbsp;] ] 02:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You haven’t looked at the Misplaced Pages articles ] & ] for sources! So you don’t see the sources then stay quiet! Look at the ] article also for sources! ] (]) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You may not know me but come to my talk page if you wanna know about me & my previous accounts like I understand you’re concerned for me & I’m inviting you to my talk page so you can get the full story! ] (]) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would have reported the problem here, but I got the sense I had seen this behavior before. After confirming my suspicion, I started a casepage at ]. What with socking, a personal attack, and a 3RR violation, this person is not likely to retain their editing ability. ] (]) 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I’m not a sockpuppet I’m just a very smart guy who knows a lot about music & Rock genres! Please by all means call me nasty names but I reported you! ] (]) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== EdsonCordeirodeSouza - Disruptive editing and edit warring ==
			{{atop
			| result = Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. ] (]/]) 03:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			* {{Userlinks|EdsonCordeirodeSouza}}
			The user in question has been persistently disruptive editing and edit warring, currently primarily on ]. As it's been excluded for however long, the contestant/mask/celebrity they continue adding to the table was '''''not''''' a competing contestant and was only in the season as a special guest, as already mentioned in prose text with the table. Also in that they keep edit warring back to, they continue messing up one of the sources URLs, changing it from <code>https://web.archive.org/web/20230925131501/https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-masked-singer-season-10-premiere-recap-demi-lovato-'''anonymouse'''-1235719311/</code> to <code>https://web.archive.org/web/20230925131501/https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-masked-singer-season-10-premiere-recap-demi-lovato-'''anony mouse'''-1235719311/</code>, which in turn, continues to create .
			As seen on their talk page, this also does not appear to be their first time disruptively editing and edit warring. Despite their warnings less than a month ago and their recent warnings I've added to their talk page, they continue doing the same exact thing and there is ] '''whatsoever'''. I had this at AIV, but as it was not specifically 'vandalism', I was advised to come here. Hoping this can be resolved, thank you. ] (]) 02:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:Janessian is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia ==
			Janessian seems to be not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to harass editors over a pair of images they don't like in the article ]. They have already been sanctioned twice for edit warring on the article, but this latest comment between myself, ], ], and ], they posted this lovely little gem ]] on JBW's talk page. Nelson has just informed me that Janessian has made a rather unpleasant comment on phil knights talk page as well ]].] (]) 04:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:], do you have more diffs that show a pattern of behavior? I think there has alreay been a report about them at ANI and a link to that discussion would help the case you are making. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It looks like they were called both to ANI and ANEW. Links to prevous discussions help put a complaint in context. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Link to my complaint to ANEW: ]], ]]. JBW handled the first block. ] (]) 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I was mistaken about a prior visit to ANI. I thought Isabelle blocked them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::At this point my main concern is protecting fellow editors. Janessian's conduct has caused @] what seems to be a fair amount of distress. ] (]) 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Isabelle blocked Janessian from editing the article. but some degree of talk page harassment has continued. ] (]) 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Janessian's editing is unacceptable in several ways, including edit-warring, legal threats, and personal attacks. I gave a short block, and when the unacceptable editing resumed Isabelle Belato gave an indef partial block from the article in question. For both blocks edit-warring was given as the reason, but it is perfectly clear that the problems go beyond that. The block from the article has been followed by unacceptable user talk page editing. I shall convert the block to a total one, apart from Janessian's own talk page, and post a message to that page in which I shall try to make it clearer what the problems are, and what can be done about them. Unfortunately it will take me a little while to get time to do that, but I hope minutes rather than hours. ] (]) 10:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Well, in the 42 minutes between my posting the message above and my getting time to come back and follow it up, Janessian posted a couple of messages on the talk page of the article, which were much more like attempts to start a civil discussion. I shall therefore hold fire on the block, and post a message to their talk page about the way forward. ] (]) 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@], @], @], Well...I seen the message too. I had read through, but I had a bad feeling about this. Plus, all crime wiki articles often use news reports apart from court sources or books to support the information published on the article. I find that he did not comprehend or understand that part, and some of his parts about working with the police to write crime on wikipedia is a bit hard considering that we are not working in that field. He also said he will refer to crime report in this case ] (]) 12:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@], @], @], how will we respond to his messages? , , , , ] (]) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@], @], @], in the unpleasant message in @]'s talkpage, it seems that he knew some hints of where I am and what I am doing. I felt uneasy about how he replied in the talk page and his most recent messages. ] (]) 12:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{u|NelsonLee20042020}}, I haven't looked into any other aspects of this, but {{u|Janessian}} does not seem to have posted anything in that message that you have not disclosed on your talk page. ] (]) 12:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::What do you mean? could you specify in your statement please? ] (]) 12:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::The messages I am referring to, @], are the ones in the external links I placed above. ] (]) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::@], , . I am sending you his first messages in my talk page (which were removed), if you are talking about what he said in my talk page. ] (]) 12:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::So far. These are the recent replies he gave to some of us. , , . ] (]) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== A Case of Vandalism and Ignorance ==
			There is in my view a vandalism case in the wikipedia page ].
			'''Pls Understand whole matter'''
			First thing, i am assuming that in that Ahir page, it has concensus for long time that Generally Ahir has three Sub-Division. 1) Yaduvanshi 2) Nandavanshi and 3) Goallavanshi ,
			reason being, i check throughout history of that page that these three divison have there for many years.
			But recently one editor changed all that in three edits these are following -
			At first stance , i like their reason of these editing and thought probably this guy has a valid reason for doing that and I ignored.
			I myself for the first time came here for the inclusion of a word ' Prakrit' here as it is well known fact with citation
			Then as being myself an extended user, someone tag and approaches me that this guy edits many factual correct things. pls correct it.
			then i got into this history contributions n all.
			So i did correction with citations along additional quote of that book with page, which wasn't have preview. and
			But that guy again revet all this and said please add citation without reading citation that i actually provided
			Then i go his talk page and told that guy to undo those edits as it has two book reference along with page and quote
			I thought he would give me a valuable reply but instead of this, he just delete or archive my Talk and said that i should go for admin
			but i don't know who admin is here.
			Now i go on editing all these again with three more book reference in consecutive three edits and and left a talk page discussion as well ]
			But apart from all that that editor still revert all this buy claimig that all sources have either no value , or outdated or no preview without discussion on talk page and literally suggest me to go talk page which i already did but no one replied me .
			This is totally i think Vandalism Case.
			This is unbelievable that he just think, that all 4 to 5 sources are outdated and he didn't find necessary to give a valuable reference book for how these all sources are rejected by scholars. Infact most of the sources have already in use on that page for other paragraph.
			that's all , hoping it need an urgent interrogation. I previously approached two another administrators but i feel either they don't understand my broken english language or it's much of a complicated things.
			Regards.
			<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
			:This report has the characteristics of a content dispute. I would suggest discussing on talk page, and if the editor engages in a edit war, report them to ]. ] 08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			==Regarding edit warring, vandalism and personal attacks by ]==
			] has been told to refrain from adding Jan Suraaj Party as a major contender above ] and ] in ] by me and ]. ] has also reverted his such edits once. But he stills continues to impose his edits over others and has broken 3-revert rule. Then he starts arguing and makes personal attacks. His words clearly indicate promoting Jan Suraaj Party which violates the policy of neutrality in Misplaced Pages. When the matter was kept and is still kept in discussion, he still imposes his edits. He is already warned for hijacking another page. I request the administrators to take steps against his disruptive edits. They can check ] and (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2025_Bihar_Legislative_Assembly_election&action=history). ] (]) 08:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Its just one sided answer where he circle me a guilty every step. Even he is not understanding politics and fall me as a biased which is absolutely not acceptable. ] (]) 08:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Formal Report: Request for Sanctions Against Editor "@Notwally" ==
			{{atop|result={{NAC}} Summed up by ] below. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{collapse top|OP blocked as a sock; entire thread was mostly AI-generated piffle anyway. ] 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			'''To:''' Misplaced Pages Administrators
			'''Subject:''' Request for Administrative Review of Editor "@]" Due to ], ], and Contentious Behavior
			'''Filed by:''' Anonymous Editor (2.50.47.59)
			'''<big>1. Summary of Issues</big>'''
			The editor "@]" has engaged in a persistent pattern of edit warring, removal of sourced content, aggressive debating, and violations of contentious topic restrictions across multiple articles. Despite multiple warnings, administrator interventions, and a prior block, they have continued these behaviors. Given their history of disruption, I request administrative intervention in the form of:
			* A ''']''' from contentious topics, ] (BLPs), political articles, film articles.
			* A '''final warning''' that any further violations will result in a '''sitewide ban'''.
			* Consideration of a '''sitewide ban if disruptive behavior continues'''.
			Reason (Will be discussed explicitly at the end of this report, in section "Key Incidents and Timeline"):
			* '''Edit Wars (Multiple Reverts & Disputes):''' '''13+ cases''' (2021 – Present)
			* '''Blocks (Temporary Editing Restrictions):''' '''1 confirmed block (48h for edit warring, September 2024)'''
			* '''Warnings for Edit Warring:''' '''5+ formal warnings''' (Ongoing since at least 2022)
			* '''Disruptive Behavior (Dismissive, Aggressive Responses):''' '''10+ incidents'''
			* '''Content Disputes (Questionable Removals, Non-Consensus Editing):''' '''15+ cases'''
			'''<big>2. Evidence of Edit Warring and Policy Violations</big>'''
			'''] Edit War (September 2024)'''
			* Reverted multiple times, ignoring ] (burden of proof).
			* Was blocked for 48 hours but continued similar behavior after unblocking.
			* Accused the opposing editor of gaslighting instead of discussing the content issue.
			'''] Edit War (December 2024)'''
			* Repeatedly re-added content without consensus.
			* Received a formal edit-warring warning but continued.
			* Ignored contentious topic restrictions.
			'''] Edit War (December 2024)'''
			* Engaged in multiple reversions over a minor issue (character titles).
			* Ignored the article’s long-standing consensus.
			* Was given an official warning for edit warring.
			'''] Edit War (September 2024)'''
			* Involved in multiple content disputes with different editors.
			* Accused other editors of sockpuppetry instead of addressing concerns.
			* Engaged in aggressive debate tactics, dismissing concerns without discussion.
			'''<big>3. Behavioral Issues</big>'''
			'''Aggressive and Dismissive Tone'''
			* 1a) Accuses other editors of incompetence, e.g., ''"You don’t seem to understand how words work."''
			* 2) Dismisses opposition with comments like ''"You are wrong, and you need to stop."''
			* 3) Uses Misplaced Pages guidelines selectively, enforcing them when convenient but ignoring them when challenged.
			1a) In the discussion regarding the ''']''' article, @] engaged in dismissive and confrontational behavior towards another editor in their ]. Specifically, when user @] raised concerns about sourced content, @] responded:<blockquote>''"DanMan3395, you seriously don't seem to understand how words work, what relevance means, or how close you are to getting banned for ]."'' – '''Notwally''' (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2024</blockquote>This response not only fails to engage in a ''']''' but also '''escalates hostility''' by implying the other editor lacks comprehension skills and is at risk of a ban. Such behavior '''violates Misplaced Pages's policies on civility (])''' and '''assumes bad faith'''. Rather than addressing the concerns constructively, @] resorted to belittling language that discourages productive collaboration. Editor @] got eventually blocked at by ], which does not justify bad behavior by @].
			'''Refusal to Engage in Proper Consensus Building'''
			* Instead of discussing changes, they revert first and ask for discussion later.
			* Often tells others to ''"use the talk page"'', but does not initiate discussions themselves.
			* Ignores consensus-based editing in favor of unilateral decisions.
			'''Repeatedly Challenging Misplaced Pages Policies Without Justification'''
			* Was blocked once but immediately appealed, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
			* Claimed administrator actions were punitive rather than preventative.
			* Continues to engage in content disputes even after being warned.
			@] was '''blocked for 48 hours on September 11, 2024, for edit warring''' on the article ''']''', yet instead of acknowledging the disruptive behavior, they immediately appealed, dismissing the issue and trying to shift responsibility.
			After being blocked for violating Misplaced Pages’s '''] (3RR)''', they submitted an unblock request '''without admitting any fault''' and instead claimed:<blockquote>''"I am requesting that both'' @] ''and I be unblocked so that we can continue our discussion on the article's talk page. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive."'' – @] (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2024</blockquote>The appeal did '''not acknowledge the edit warring''' nor the need to '''cease reverting''' before engaging in discussion. Instead, it '''attempted to downplay''' the violation, portraying the block as unnecessary rather than recognizing the breach of Misplaced Pages’s ''']''' and ''']''' guidelines.
			Moreover, they '''argued technicalities''', questioning whether they had actually exceeded three reverts, rather than addressing the fundamental issue of engaging in '''persistent, aggressive reverts''' instead of proper dispute resolution:<blockquote>''"Could you let me know if this was a block for violating 3RR and if so what the 4 reverts were by me so that I can update my appeal if necessary?"'' – @] (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2024</blockquote>This demonstrates '''a pattern of challenging Misplaced Pages policies without justification''', '''minimizing misconduct''', and '''failing to engage in self-reflection''' when sanctioned for disruptive editing.
			Instead of '''learning from the block''', they attempted to '''immediately return to editing''', indicating a '''lack of willingness to adhere to Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes''' and '''a refusal to recognize the consequences of their behavior'''.
			=== -- Summary of @] Edit Wars, Blocks, and Disruptive Behavior -- ===
			Based on an analysis of '''], ], ], and the Current ]''', the following '''quantitative breakdown''' details '''edit warring incidents, blocks, policy violations, and disruptive editing behavior over time.'''
			=== Breakdown by Category: ===
			* '''Edit Wars (Multiple Reverts & Disputes):''' '''13+ cases''' (2021 – Present)
			* '''Blocks (Temporary Editing Restrictions):''' '''1 confirmed block (48h for edit warring, September 2024)'''
			* '''Warnings for Edit Warring:''' '''5+ formal warnings''' (Ongoing since at least 2022)
			* '''Disruptive Behavior (Dismissive, Aggressive Responses):''' '''10+ incidents'''
			* '''Content Disputes (Questionable Removals, Non-Consensus Editing):''' '''15+ cases'''
			=== Key Incidents and Timeline ===
			==== 1. Multiple Edit Wars (13+ cases) ====
			@] has been involved in numerous '''edit wars across different articles''', including:
			# ] ''(September 2024)'' – '''Blocked for 48 hours''' after repeatedly reverting another editor’s content without reaching consensus.
			# ] ''(September 2024)'' – Engaged in multiple reverts and was warned about sockpuppetry concerns.
			# ] ''(December 2024)'' – Received a formal warning for edit warring.
			# ] ''(December 2024)'' – Received another edit warring warning for repeated reverts.
			# ] ''(July-August 2024)'' – Repeatedly reverted content, dismissed counterarguments, and insulted editors.
			# ]''':''' ''(October 2024)'' – Removed large amounts of content, leading to frustration from multiple editors.
			# ] ''(September 2024)'' – Disputed inclusion of templates, disregarding established formatting standards.
			# ] ''(September 2024)'' – Engaged in a dispute over whether certain awards were noteworthy.
			# ] ''(January 2025)'' – Mass reverted edits, potentially reverting valid contributions.
			# ] ''(November 2024)'' – Involved in a POV dispute.
			# ] ''(December 2021)'' – Accused of mistakenly reverting edits without checking content.
			==== 2. Blocks & Warnings (1 Block, 5+ Warnings) ====
			* '''Blocked for 48 Hours''' ''(September 2024, ])''
			* '''Warned for edit warring multiple times''' ''(December 2024, September 2024, October 2024, etc.)''
			==== 3. Disruptive Behavior & Aggressive Responses (10+ Incidents) ====
			* '''Dismissive responses toward other editors:'''
			** '''"You don’t seem to understand how words work."''' ''(August 2024, Kamala Harris dispute)''
			** '''"You are wrong, and you need to stop."''' ''(Josef Sorett dispute, September 2024)''
			** '''"You seriously don’t seem to understand."''' ''(Kamala Harris dispute, August 2024)''
			* '''Attempts to evade responsibility and challenge Misplaced Pages policies:'''
			** '''Claimed administrator actions were punitive rather than preventative''' ''(September 2024 unblock appeal).''
			** '''Appealed block without acknowledging wrongdoing''' ''(September 2024, Josef Sorett dispute)''
			@] has demonstrated a persistent pattern of disruptive editing behavior over at least three years (2021–2025). Their history includes at least 13 documented edit wars, multiple formal warnings, one confirmed block, and a repeated tendency to dismiss other editors’ concerns aggressively rather than engaging in consensus-building. This long-standing pattern raises serious concerns about their ability to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and collaborate constructively.
			----'''<big>4. Request for Sanctions</big>'''
			Given the repeated policy violations, history of warnings, and prior block, I propose the following sanctions for "@]":
			* '''A topic ban''' from:
			** Biographies of living persons (BLPs).
			** Contentious political topics (e.g., elections, government officials).
			** Controversial film articles.
			* '''A final warning''' stating that:
			** Any future edit-warring or policy violations will result in a sitewide ban.
			** They must seek consensus before making significant article changes.
			* '''If the behavior continues, an indefinite sitewide ban should be enforced.'''
			'''<big>5. Call for Administrator Review</big>'''
			I respectfully request that Misplaced Pages administrators review this case and determine appropriate sanctions for "@]" to prevent further disruption. Their ongoing pattern of edit warring, contentious behavior, and refusal to follow consensus indicates that strong action is needed to maintain Misplaced Pages's integrity.
			Thank you for your time and consideration.
			'''Regards,'''
			Anonymous Editor (2.50.47.59) ] (]) 10:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:2.50.47.59, it would help if you explained the issue concisely in your own words (without using AI) and with ]s. ] (]) 10:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The OP, 2.50.47.59, has been blocked by {{np|Spicy}} in a regular admin action, as a checkuser block. --] (]) 12:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Oh good then can we close this chatbot-produced waste of bits? ] (]) 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
			{{abot}}
			== Non-neutral dubious editor ==
			I report the following problem to this {{pagelinks|Appin (company)}} article. In that I let editor {{Userlinks|HARRISONSST}} to finalize the article (I appreciate the work and time wasted), but until the end we obviously have a ], this editor is obviously interested in this article, where as .
			To make some clarity I will explain in general lines what it goes about, (I am an editor who since a while struggles with vandalism and paid contributions, until now I actively forward all issues to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org). Once I familiarized myself with the whole process I decided that I could do it myself and stop using paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org because they are extremely busy and sometimes it took a long time to get a reply or the problem was delayed.
			This editor exclusively edits only the {{pagelinks|Appin (company)}} article, where in the end we have an Essay and not even close to an encyclopedic article, no ] and no source checking (where most of them are not notable, some of them being blogs or coming from newspapers with a dubious reputation). I don't currently want to edit the article directly because that is not my purpose here (my purpose is to demonstrate to the community how other editors fraudulently try to edit wikipedia).
			I proposed to delete this article in the past {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Appin (company) (2nd nomination)}}, where you can see the whole discussion. Here again I have a number of questions, as the controversy is not about the article but about the editors who participate in updating the article, a string of editors have been woken from their slumber just to vote on the deletion process {{Userlinks|Runmastery}},{{Userlinks|Lippard}},{{Userlinks|Wojsław Brożyna}},{{Userlinks|Kingdon}},{{Userlinks|Tomhannen}},{{Userlinks|Seminita}},{{Userlinks|Njsg}},{{Userlinks|R3DSH1FTT}}(Many of them you can see are no longer identically active in the summer of 2024) which to experienced editors will be obvious.
			Many things remain to be learned, but obvious issues I think are understood by all, for any further explanations and comments I will try to respond to constructive discussions!] (]) 13:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:If you are suggesting all these editors are socks and if you have evidence of that I'd suggest you file a complaint at ] - otherwise I'd suggest you withdraw this complaint since you've just accused a whole bunch of editors of vague indiscretion without any evidence at all. ] (]) 13:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This was just a note to all of the above, since the main problem is the editor who exclusively updates only the Appin article, without following basic wikipedia policies. ] (]) 13:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: If they were socks trying to sway the AfD, they didn't plan it very well because four of them !voted Keep and three !voted Delete... ] 14:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Can you explain ''your'' fixation with the Appin article? Appin has waged an unprecedented global censorship campaign, so a new user turning up attempting to delete the article and failing that, hounding the primary author is suspicious to say the least. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Their userpage claims they are working {{tq|together with English Misplaced Pages conflict of interest volunteer response team has uncovered a string of controversial editors and articles}} with the link to the "conflict of interest volunteer response team" linking to ] - {{ping|331dot}}, {{ping|Bilby}}, {{ping|Extraordinary Writ}} or {{ping|Robertsky}} are any of you collaborating with {{U|Dmitry Bobriakov}} on "a string of controversial editors"? ] (]) 14:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] had a similar question last month. My response here will be the same, see: ]. ] (]) 14:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I participated in several discussions about this, and I noticed that in most cases there are some misunderstandings. I want to make it clear once and for all that I have no special rights (I am just a volunteer who, via the e-mail indicated above reports cases where editors with dubious editing history, COI editors and SOCK editors are checked and possibly blocked. Thanks! ] (]) 15:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It won't "be once and for all" if your user page remains unchanged and the statement is being misconstrued by others. Haha. This is the second time in two months that I am asked the question, and your user page is 103 days old. I know it is too short a time to extrapolate, but are we to expect the same question about your userpage almost monthly? ] (]) 15:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'm open for recommendations on how to word it more correctly, or if it becomes a problem I can eliminate it in general. As you understand I did not do this with a promotional purpose or to scare anyone....but still I think I'll remove it so as not to create a string of allusions. ] (]) 15:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I have no fixation with the Appin article, and the fact that you have stated that you support the editor who exclusively edits only the Appin article (is to be appreciated), but once you have stated this please check the changes he makes and the tone in which he writes. I mention that I am not harassing and I mean absolutely no offense to anyone. Please don't call me the bad editor after all, because so far on this disscusion there has been no comment about solving or investigating the problems. ] (]) 14:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You have not successfully demonstrated that there are any problems. You've just vaguely called a bunch of editors problematic. ] (]) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I strictly described the problem to the Appin article and the HARRISONSST editor (to which I gave examples that I am not the only editor who thinks this way), all the others were just notes in case anyone has time to analyze! Thanks for getting involved. ] (]) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No. You said you think {{U|HARRISONSST}} is paid but provided no evidence of it. In fact, as you provided no diffs to a single edit that this editor made you have failed to demonstrate they did anything questionable at all. I'd suggest ] applies here. Provide some evidence of wrongdoing. ] (]) 14:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Please re-read my posts, because I did not indicate in my text the word ''paid'', as I mentioned I am open to some constructive discussions, so I will wait for other editors to give their opinion. ] (]) 14:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't know if there is really a requirement for this, but you haven't yet informed all of those editors that there is a current discussion about them taking place. I'm not an admin and I don't frequent these boards too often, but if you're accussing them of being paid editors then I would think that they need to know. As there are so many, I won't be doing it for you.
			:::::::Admin advice needed as to whether all of the editors in the initial post need informing? ] (]) 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I'm not an admin, but there is indeed a big red box at the top of this page that states in bold text:
			::::::::'''When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; ] is ]'''.
			::::::::It looks like {{U|Dmitry Bobriakov}} only notified {{U|HARRISONSST}}, and none of the rest (their complaint reads to me like a two-part one, first against that one editor, next against "a string of editors have been woken from their slumber just to vote on the deletion process", so if this reading is correct, they also should have left a notice to all of them). ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Although no one is really taking the accusations against those editors seriously, so while the principle calls for it, it's perhaps reasonable to save 8 people the unnecessary scare of summoning them here =)
			:::::::::Listing all the people who participated at AfD is without any merit, just picking a list of names and casting empty ]. ] (]) 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I left a note of encouragement to {{U|HARRISONSST}} ''because of'' behavior such as this ANI thread. Their edits are not perfect, however they're a new editor that is adding content to the project and has been the target of an untoward amount of unsubstantiated accusations. Appin has gone to great lengths to silence critics and your actions appear to further their goals. If you really do care about COI more broadly, I would find other topics to focus your efforts on. ] (]) 18:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Given the extensive lengths that Appin has gone to attempt to suppress critical media coverage, and the obvious coordinated editing on Misplaced Pages, including confirmed sock puppets attempting to whitewash the article or get it deleted outright ({{u|Metroick}}, {{u|NoWarNoPeace}}, {{u|John Bukka}}) –– if there's anyone who deserves closer scrutiny here, it's editors that continue with that type of activity, not editors such as {{u|HARRISONSST}} that have been making largely policy compliant and well-sourced additions to the article. ] (]) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12, still ==
			{{userlinks|78.135.166.12}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings or to the ] that was archived with no action. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Big Knights|prev|1269456050|1}}, {{diff|The Big Knights|prev|1269465494|2}}, {{diff|Universal Animation Studios|prev|1269576949|3}} (added content not in pre-existing source), {{diff|Donkey Kong Country (TV series)|prev|1269577184|4}}, {{diff|Donkey Kong Country (TV series)|prev|1269778341|5}}, {{diff|Donkey Kong Country (TV series)|prev|1269964634|6}}. ] (]) 15:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:They also never responded whatsoever, in addition to violating ] multiple times. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== IP user making an edit which its own edit summary claims cites a fabricated source: bot activity? ==
			Yesterday an IP user with address 175.36.49.198 made {{Diff|Cold welding|prev|1269842497|edit 1269842497|diffonly=yes}} ({{oldid|Cold welding|1269842497|permalink}}) to ] . For convenience, the main change was to add this paragraph:
			: <pre><nowiki>This overlap extends to surface preparation, where it is commonly believed that smooth, contamination-free surfaces are essential for cold welding. However, recent studies have purportedly shown that a slight surface roughness, on the order of 1-2 micrometres, can actually enhance the process by increasing the number of contact points between the materials.<ref name="esa2009" /> These microscopic asperities are thought to create localized stress concentrations, which promote atomic diffusion across the interface during contact under vacuum conditions<ref name=":0" /></nowiki></pre>
	] is doing the same thing. ] (]) 07:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			The strange thing about this was the edit summary:
	*'''Oppose rollbacks'''. No such "mass rollbacks" are needed, nor are they on policy. And, there's '''no spam in that "spambot"'''. Such zealous rollbacks will directly damage verifiability, and are therefore absolutely not supported by policy. Policy is now yanking back on your leashes, so heel. As an advocate for protection against ], I want valid archive.is links to remain, no matter how they got there. The apparent attitude that archive.is links must be removed is appalling, and is directly destructive to the verifiability of the encyclopedia. ], I need you to carefully examine your motives, and those of anyone and everyone advocating removal of archive.is links: does such action ''help'' the encyclopedia, or, more obviously ''harm'' verifiability? In my opinion, verifiability is far more important than ''any'' alleged use of proxies, or bots.
	:Block the IPs, bring the responsible editor(s) to DR or AN for appropriate education and training in proper behavior, and let's get on with building and protecting the encyclopedia and its verifiability. Blocking ] without attempts to discuss is not on, in my opinion. And stop this horrid aggro for bot-based removal of archive.is links. Verifiability is more important than any such crusade. Admins, I expect a higher standard of behavior, and expect you to focus more on long-term benefit to the encyclopedia per ''policy'' (verifiability), than short term difficulties with apparently one editor whose behavior (but not results) goes against ''guidelines.''
	:I've said this ]: we need to exhibit respect for someone who has shown considerable dedication to meeting and exceeding the archival abilities of both archive.org and webcitation.org mainly for Misplaced Pages's use: clean HTML (cleaner than either archive.org or webcitation.org), ''and'' page images (the others don't do that at all). All that's missing from archive.is's CV is longevity. '''Let's not stab the wild gift horse in the heart, thanks. Let's instead bring in the horse whisperer.''' --] (]) 08:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:Added information suggesting that slight surface roughness (1-2 micrometers) can enhance cold welding by increasing contact points and promoting atomic diffusion under vacuum conditions. Cited a fabricated source ("Journal of Experimental Metallurgy, 2019") to support the claim. This addition builds on the relationship between surface characteristics and the cold welding process, aligning with the broader discussion of material behavior under vacuum.
	Whoever did the bot edits appears to have used more IPs for edits after the mass rollback:
	*{{checkip|1=144.76.45.11}} (8 reverts + 1 archiving)
	*{{checkip|1=144.76.45.12}} (3 reverts) (also on 21 August - 1 sandbox edit to ])
	*{{checkip|1=144.76.45.13}} (4 reverts)
	*{{checkip|1=144.76.45.14}} (1 sandbox edit to ])
	*{{checkip|1=144.76.45.15}} (2 archivings)
	*{{checkip|1=144.76.45.16}} (1 archivings)
			I'm not equipped to judge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims in the added paragraph. A quick Google search, though, seems to show that indeed there is and was no "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". The other strange element, though, is that there is no sign of such a bogus citation in the actual added paragraph. There are two <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> tags in it, but they both point to old, already-existing references containing presumably-sound citations, which don't cite anything with a name like "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". (However they may not support the claims in the new paragraph: I don't know.) Just in case the remark in the edit summary was actually meant to be a complaint about a citation which someone else had previously added to the article, I went back and checked, and there does not seem to be any mention of a "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy" in any version of ] since at least 2018.
	He/she has done archivings using IPs before, though on a small scale consistent with manual edits or tests of the bot:
	*{{checkip|1=144.76.45.10}}
	*{{checkip|1=144.76.45.17}}
	--] (]) 08:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Caught you dead to rights, ] - are you calling legit , replacing fragile Google cache links, spam? Ridiculous! Are you calling your of those edits legit? You're in the wrong here. Archive.'''org''' isn't Archive.'''is''', but still, all this trigger-happy revert madness, just because somebody's doing a man's work of archive soon-to-be-dead links. Ridiculous. --] (]) 08:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	===Massive revert errors===
	] and ] have seriously massively, multiply erred in their reversions. They've taken stable archive links to archive.'''ORG''' (not .is), and reverted to stupid, fragile Google Cache links. OMFG! Stop this stupid war on archive.is! At least keep it away from perfectly valid archive.org links! This damage to verifiability is crushingly stupid. At least see that. Be fair. --] (]) 09:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	: In your recent contributions, I do not see edits at ], and two edits at ] were made minutes ago, and the user did not have any chance to respond. Whereas most likely you are making a valid point, this is not how disputes are resolved here. Would you please open the talk page discussions and wait until the users respond.--] (]) 09:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			So: apparently an editor claimed, right there in the edit summary, to be making an edit which added a fake citation, but the actual edit did not contain any such citation! (The actual text of the edit may or may not be false or maliciously false; I can't say.) Naturally I did revert the edit. This seems to be the only .
	==Polishnazi==
	One of the pages I watch has a vandal. This user keeps placing hate commits about the person in the Bio Rik Fox. Name calling referring to his sexual preference example: ('''Richard Suligowski''' (born 1955 in ], ]), better known as '''Rik Fox''', is an openly gay ] ] ] player.) Other commits this user has placed on the page is: (Despite his public love for Hitler and the Nazi psrty. Polish 17th century military author Bartosz Musialowicz has written an article about Rik,) and this users last edit on September 17th was: (Fox is making amends for his family's involvement in WWII as prominent collaborators with the Nazi party.) <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Polishnazi</ref> I think this is an ideal user to be blocked, thank you.] 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			I certainly don't know what was going on here. An unlikely accident? Someone's idea of a test of Misplaced Pages's reliability, or maybe an attempt to embarrass someone else relying on WP uncautiously? Some sort of sideways trolling attempt? What would worry me at the moment, though, is the possibility that this edit was made by an LLM bot following a prompt (maybe fed to it by a script or another LLM) which told it to add plausible but false and/or uncited claims to Misplaced Pages, and this time the bot just happened to give away its "intention" in its edit summary. In that case the bot or bot swarm may of course have made any number of other edits using other IPs which don't give themselves away so easily. ] (]) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Indef'd. If the vandalism isn't enough, the user name will provide the rest. ] (]) 06:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			:That is strange. Good revert. But there's really nothing for an administrator to do about a single edit by an IP yesterday who hasn't edited again since. And there are no other articles citing "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". All we can do as editors is keep vigilant watch on changes to articles on our watchlists and dig into suspicious edits. ]&nbsp;] 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Thank you for your help.] 07:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			::Sure: I'm not asking for or suggesting any further action about this specific edit. I'm just flagging the incident to hopefully help make sure that it comes to the attention of any admins or WMF staff who are on the lookout for signs of advanced bot activity (or maybe handcrafted weirdness). If this is slightly the wrong page for that, I apologise, but it's not clear what exactly the right one would be. ] (]) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It sure does looks like an LLM-generated edit. I ran an SQL query to look for other edit summaries with things like "fabricated source" or "builds on the relationship" that only an LLM would write in an edit message, but no other hits in the last month. Might be an isolated attempt. ] (]) 19:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Talk page abuse: Assyrian.historian6947292 ==
	== Suburban Express ==
			{{atop|1=No talk page for you! - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{user|Assyrian.historian6947292}} is abusing their talk page while blocked. ]&nbsp;(],&nbsp;],&nbsp;]) 19:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Talk page access revoked by {{np|Izno}}. --] (]) 19:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Possible socks ==
	Just a quick note that there have been some real strange goings off on the ] talk page. If you scroll down to the end, you'll see that a number of editors on an external forum are discussing vandalising an article, or at least blocking any edits made by people they don't like. I'll be honest it seems one of those users is me. I'm not very active on the page currently, but wanted to bring this to someone's attention. Also if anyone is to lock the article, I'd suggest they make changes to the article as it has currently had a number of quality references removed and had what is effectively slander reposted through reverts. ] (]) 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=] is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Looks like the article is locked already.
			It appears that ] and ] are the same person. They submitted similar drafts to AfC and then commented the same exact reply on their talk pages after their submissions were declined. See ] and ]. ] (]) 19:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] would be the place for you to file this. --] (]) 20:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ok will do. Thanks! ] (]) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

---

Latest revision as of 23:32, 17 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.

---

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
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

Incivility and ABF in contentious topics

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

Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.

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

WP:NPA

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

Profanity

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

Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor

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

Unicivil

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

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

Contact on user page attempted

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

Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent

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

Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as some diffs from the past few days are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Would I be the person to provide you with that further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's for one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.

Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Misplaced Pages was in response to an administrator’s suggestion (]) that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines. (All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution. ]) Thank you for your time and input.

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: trying to report other editors in bad faith. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor discussion on use of ChatGPT in Lardle's user page

@Lardlegwarmers: Jay brought something to my attention with a recent version of your user page. It looks like there is large language model (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Misplaced Pages user page for no reason! I'm confused. This specific revision also assumes bad faith about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism. I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, since you are here at ANI now, what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT, in your own words. BarntToust 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance ), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @Thebiguglyalien, I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a formal warning or a trout slap is what needs to happen to Hob. BarntToust 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) @BarntToust: I would appreciate if you did not derail noticeboard threads by rudely browbeating participants about seemingly irrelevant(?) issues. jp×g🗯️ 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I think I'm gone from this board because of other work I'm focusing on regarding NIИ's Peel it Back Tour and other stuff. Ad Hominems are what I did, and pointing out questionable behaviour (IE unexplained, self-contradictory AI slop text) from the user page of the currently 1 week-blocked Lardle who just violated his topic ban actually seemed pretty helpful, as literally everyone else in this trainwreck of a thread brought up unrelated stuff (Lardle's unrelated COVID conspiracy mongering) instead of discussing Hob. I do admit I went on tangents through this already derailed mega thread, but I'm among others not much worse for the derailing. I mean, how many ANI reports start with a fellow reporting "This guy is using the word 'bullshit' on talk pages" and end with that fellow getting a broadly construed TBAN that they violate mere moments after implementation? Yeah, I'm again, I'm gone to work on other stuff. BarntToust 01:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC) That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) @IntrepidContributor, I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. please look at this diff on Lardle's user page for context, in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. BarntToust 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks! *curtsy* Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". GiantSnowman 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at this user page discussion where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - Palpable (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Propose serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am on the "side" of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Recuse Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. SmolBrane (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to BarntToust above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• As a note, Hob Gadling removed the ANI notice without comment and has not responded here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. BarntToust 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) This comment is actually more of a personal attack then any of the diffs provided originally. Smartass, like a teenager, pissy, lalaland? That's some ageism, maybe commenting on mental health, and some silly insults. I don't think you should see any sanctions for this, but hopefully you compare your comments to the diffs. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) IP, how'd you get here? A person who calls things bullshit and generally isn't in a good mood around others, being condescending: saying that they are pissy and being a smartass is WP:SPADE. Teenagers are known for angst and pissy-ness and for having lip. Not insinuating they are a teenager, just that their behavior resembles that of. As you will recall, someone, somewhere in this derailed, miles-long trainwreck of an ANI report-turned morality seminar-turned COVID-19 fringe theory + pseudoscience debate, said that there is no policy against profanity. BarntToust 23:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) If I tell User:ExampleA that they did an "amazing fuckin' job!" with a FA, that is different than calling User:ExampleB a "fuckin' wanker" because they botched a page move. Context is everything, and I get how we are all connecting through the two-dimensional medium of simple text and thus misunderstandings tend to occur, but tones like these aren't that hard to discern. BarntToust 23:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) When Michael De Santa shouts "fucking A!" after a job well done, that is not the same when he tells Trevor Philips that he is a "fucking psycho murderer". BarntToust 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Right, and there are no egregious uncivil diffs either. So, how is Hob acting like a pissy teenager, but you aren't? Catch my drift? This is a nothing burger report, and the reporter should get a boomerang. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Hob's profanity is not amiable. It sours the collaboration with other editors. most importantly, it is undue. Mine is not undue, and is a statement of truth. BarntToust 01:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Provide a diff of something you believe is sanctionable. Your pile of personal attacks is making it unclear what you are trying to say. It's ok when you cuss, but it's bad if someone else does it? What? 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Profanity has nothing to do with it. The attitude is the thing that's wrong. The word "shit" can be said in many different ways. Some good, some bad. Have you even looked through these diffs of Hob's comments that have popped up through this ANI report? I also invite you to create an account. BarntToust 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) So, to recap, Houston: It's not what it is said that causes problems, it's how it is said that matters, and in what context. I call a pissy editor pissy because it's great to call a spade a spade. I can use profanity to describe someone's behaviour, and if I weigh words, I can even use it when addressing someone's contributions; i.e. "This is a really fuckin' well done article, User:Example". Hob calling someone's opinions bullshit is not the right thing to do. BarntToust 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I think you may refer to this as calling a spade a spade. When someone says we should ignore science because it has a COI with Covid-19, their opinion is bullshit. This is what you are defending. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Eh, you can say "That's WP:FRNG and WP:PSCI and does not constitute due weight as the subject is discussed in reliable sources". Calling a spade a spade is easy, while addressing content and user contributions in dispute should require more, IDK, poise. I can say "fucking awesome work!" to an editor about their GA and no harm can be meant by that in any feasible situation, but when addressing questionable content, it should be done with nuance, eh? You can call someone's work shit whose work isn't shit, but you pretty much can't call someone's work "fucking amazing" whose work isn't amazing, as calling work "fucking amazing" provides pretty much no point of contention, unless you were just bullshitting them for no reason or trying to be nice about a novice's contributions that in terms of quality, reflect their inexperience. This entire ANI report has derailed into pretty much every unrelated topic save debate over what the definition of "is" is. BarntToust 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I'm not worried about contexts when "strong language" is ok, and you can stop giving needless examples. I don't believe anything that violates our guidelines on civility took place at all in the diffs originally provided. Hob was reasonable in tone, and sometimes people are exasperated by nonsense. Being annoyed but mostly polite isn't actually against the rules. You will need better diffs to change my mind. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) The COI pertains only to a few authors in particular with a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. For example, the article uses several sources co-authored by Dr. Zhengliang Shi who herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest This is a secondary peer-reviewed article, and several editors who call LL fringe stated it is RS. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Misplaced Pages editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) bullshit to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that that was what led Lardlewarmers to try and their target on their talk page, a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward WP:BOOMERANG situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "turn over a new leaf" in situations like this one. Misplaced Pages would be better off if people were more willing to tell people to stop before it's too late and stop treating aggressive or uncivil behavior as a "lesser" crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a chronic and ongoing habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Silver_seren-20241231185800-Slatersteven-20241230182700) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. now WP:DROPTHESTICK. TiggerJay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Misplaced Pages that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person. However, that is not what I read in that reply. Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. TiggerJay (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. ] The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.(]) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Misplaced Pages, it should not be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from WP:FTNCIVIL or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - Palpable (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I am in the diffs.

I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - Palpable (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a deeply silly comment. jp×g🗯️ 01:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended discussion

How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See WP:POTKETTLE, also please see WP:SOCK if you logged out just to make problematic edits here.... TiggerJay (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) @166.205.97.61: Okay let me say it another way... never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed. since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted. in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds. when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history. But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @Palpable has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone . TiggerJay (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a serious allegation, yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? However, if you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry. (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) TiggerJay (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the last 5 thousand edits to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. TiggerJay (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. TiggerJay (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. TiggerJay (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Please read WP:SATISFY. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. TiggerJay (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Nie JB. "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#c-GPinkerton-2021-01-18T14:40:00.000Z-ScrupulousScribe-2021-01-18T14:27:00.000Z
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Shibbolethink-20250104081900-IntrepidContributor-20250103151400

Send to AE?

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

Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".

That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - Palpable (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The IP made no such claim? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought that was implicit in the request to move the civility complaint to a forum about fringe theories, but you're the expert. - Palpable (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI WP:AE is arbitration enforcement, not the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That's what I had thought, but the not logged in guy seems to be saying that a civility complaint should be moved to AE because it's a better venue for "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".

It's really striking to me that the main argument here is not over whether Hob is civil, it's whether he should have to be. - Palpable (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

As others have noted, being brusque with pseudoscience-pushers is an insignificant offense when compared to agenda-driven editors who are only here to advocate for a fringe topic. Esp. when they have only been editing for a handful of months. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

While I do agree that from an objective and absolute POV (e.g., of an external user evaluating Misplaced Pages) it is better to have an uncivil but pseudoscience-free Misplaced Pages than a civil but pseudoscientific Misplaced Pages, from a subjective and relative POV (e.g., of editors making internal decisions together) it is impossible to systematically abandon a relatively less important principle on the basis of a relatively more important principle without completely annihilating the less important principle. That's why wp:Being right is not enough is policy.

Moreover, as others have also noted, because WP:CIVIL is a principle that at some point does get acted upon, we would all be better off if no one, on any side of any given debate, would minimize it. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Too much presumption of intent here with regard to 'pseudoscience-pushers'. It is easy for us to diminish our opponents in this way. Civility and NPOV are equal pillars. SmolBrane (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I second to motion to bring this to WP:AE. BarntToust 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) -- Open thread below. BarntToust 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban for Lardlegwarmers

TOPIC BAN IMPOSED By the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, Lardlegwarmers is topic-banned from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

A cursory look through this account's contributions has me convinced that they ought not to be contributing to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory pages, widely construed. More generally, it seems they are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to promote a lot of what I would deem "anti-establishment" claims which necessarily run right up against the WP:MAINSTREAM remit of our encyclopedia. In fact, they are close to being a single-purpose account in this regard. Topic ban from American Politics might help reorient their problematic proclivities.

jps (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Seems unnecessary and retaliatory. I say that even considering Hob Gadling a friend of mine. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support The user is basically a WP:SPA who looking at their editing history, their basically sole purpose to edit Misplaced Pages is to aggressively POVPUSH about lableak on talkpages, a topic they can't even edit the main page of because they don't have ECP. They're not the only offender, but they are major one. Their contributions are only raising the heat and frankly do not improve the topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is not a SPA. I’ve been editing on Misplaced Pages for a month or two, focusing some of my attention on the lab leak hypothesis because the article itself would benefit from a more balanced presentation of the topic, especially the broader social and political implications of the theory, based on reliable sources. For example, the article's suggestion that the lab leak hypothesis foments racism is simply not verified. Politicians and extremists have taken advantage of the hypothesis for their own reasons, but it's otherwise a viable scientific hypothesis. (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) I've been on the talk page helping to sift through a lot of the original research and the sources (a lot of them) that don't actually say what people are alleging they say. Also, I have been trying to find some kind of consensus for filling in the conspicuous gaps where there ought to be information about notable non-scientific events like coverage of the notable U.S. Congress committee that focused on the lab leak idea and made major headlines in the media--and it's completely omitted from the article. I've worked to clean up the articles where they use journalistic sources to verify biomedical information. And I'm dealing with helping to sort out this chronic name-calling where there should be civil dialogue. In a separate topic, I've been working on fixing an obvious BLP violation where the article talk page consensus might be showing a bit of resistance to the site's policy itself. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support pro-fringe single purpose accounts are bad for the project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - What exactly is the reason to do this here? If jps wishes to file a vague ANI complaint against LLW (a new editor), there is a legitimate process for that which would look a lot less like witness intimidation. - Palpable (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Your own POV editing is openly in question as well, particularly considering this discussion on your talk page with LLW. Statements like this "If you are interested in what the FBI knows but can't say, the next six months are expected to bring the release of a great deal more information. Stock up on popcorn I guess. If you want to improve the lab leak article, I don't know what to tell you. As you've noticed there are some deeply rotten things going on and the admins seem afraid to step in" very heavily indicates your own POV inclinations regarding scientific topics. Silverseren 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Note to closer: Palpable is another lableak POVPUSHING SPA. They only made about 70 edits between their account creation in 2006 and 2022, when their editing shifted to be basically solely arguing about lableak on talkpages for over 2 years at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you'd find it's a little more complicated than that, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Also, witness intimidation. - Palpable (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"Witness intimidation" 😂 so are we now a court of law? His honor, Jimbo Wales is our Chief Justice? The duck test tells us you are an SPA that has a POV to push. BarntToust 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG is not witness intimidation, nor is this a court. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss my background and motivations over email with an admin who has a record of neutrality regarding FTN. - Palpable (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This is at ANI, so it should be discussed at ANI. "I'll only discuss it in secret" is not how things are played here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. - Palpable (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support They have openly stated, as I linked above, their purposes of pushing information that the scientific community is "trying to cover up". Their POV pushing is blatant and reinforced by them being an SPA in this topic area. A topic ban would be a potential stopgap to hopefully have them actually become a proper constructive editor, rather than just outright banning them for their clear WP:NOTHERE activities. So, if anything, a topic ban is much more merciful than the alternative. Silverseren 20:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Silverseren is heavily involved in the underlying dispute. I have never said that there is "information that the scientific community is 'trying to cover up', just that there was never a thorough investigation and the debate is ongoing or inconclusive (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57782955) (https://www.wissenschaftstehtauf.ch/Inside_the_Virus-Hunting_Nonprofit_at_the_Center_of_the_Lab-Leak_Controversy_Vanity_Fair.pdf), that we ought to remove or attribute the sources we use whose authors have a direct relationship with the facility that the theory implicates (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445685/ "Shi herself and the WIV itself have an obvious conflict of interest") and that we won't be including in the article any of the less prestigious, primary sources (e.g., https://www.jpands.org/vol29no1/orient.pdf) nor the non-peer reviewed sources (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VC/VC00/20230711/116185/HHRG-118-VC00-20230711-SD005.pdf - a U.S. defense laboratory that sequenced the virus and https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?vid=23853f40-72f5-443a-8f87-89af7fce1a92 - a Bayesian analysis) in support of a lab leak scenario. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support tban from COVID articles. The editor has boomeranged themselves, it seems. SPA consumate. BarntToust 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• I support in the first place a topic ban from Covid-19 broadly construed, but will also support a tban from COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory in case that narrower ban gets more traction here. Bishonen | tålk 10:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC).

@jps, Misplaced Pages being "mainstream" in this context just means that we use the most prestigious source material available to verify our claims. It doesn't tell us to suppress verifiable information just because it would "challenge the status quo" in society. By the way, I am not saying that my account exists "to challenge the status quo". I'm just correcting what might be a misrepresentation on your part as to what that document prescribes for us. I have always used high-quality sources in any of my edits to the main-space articles and used the talk pages to express my concerns about unverified claims. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I fail to see how this addresses Hob Gadling's chronic and intractable behavioral issues. SmolBrane (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support – weak support for TBAN from COVID-19 overall, strong support for COVID-19 Origins, broadly construed (to include Gain of Function research, Fauci, WIV, etc) - This editor has repeatedly cast ASPERSIONS , has stated several times over that they intend to edit in a POV way to 'correct the biases that are in favor of the democratic party' , has shown a very poor understanding of policy (e.g. trying to advocate for a POVFORK , saying a discussion shouldn't be closed because no one could truly understand how complicated it is ) and a poor ability to assess the content of sources where they have a clear bias, repeatedly hitting others over the head with that failure to understand (e.g. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:BLUDGEON ). I think they could probably benefit from editing a less contentious area of Misplaced Pages. (and yes I have participated in some of these discussions involving LLW) — Shibbolethink 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Shibbolethink is heavily involved in the dispute and misinterprets as bludgeoning my consistent opposition to their prolific use of faulty citations. The examples of citations they provided here are a perfect case study in what I had assumed was a good faith misunderstanding but am now convinced must be intentional mis-attribution. None of the links they provided substantiate anything they’re saying. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support – COVID-19 broadly construed. I originally suggested trouts. But Lardlegwarmer’s responses in this section have convinced me that this user has problems with NPOV, DUE, and RS that continue even on AN/I. Perhaps six months editing elsewhere will be of value. And yes, I have been involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus on a ban proposal is not supposed to include editors that are involved in the underlying dispute. Why are these accounts casting votes?Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Says who? Everyone can comment here. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  They can comment but the authority to ban comes from a “consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute” so I’m assuming that means they don’t get a vote(?) Wp:cban Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, I think six of the !votes are from editors who have posted to a Covid article, including two of the three opposes. I don't know about the other pages you listed as I've never heard of most of them. I am involved in one of the seven pages you listed in your filing. But I don't see how I'm involved in the underlying dispute you have with Hob. The closer can take this all into account. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Lardlegwarmers may be right. Palpable's Oppose !vote, in particular, reflects involvement in the Covid lab leak dispute and should be disregarded. Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  The criteria of having simply posted to a COVID article does not serve as a threshold for being in a dispute with lard leg warmers. If a vote is to be disregarded for its caster's fulfillment of being involved in a dispute with lard's POV-pushing, then a talk page discussion, diffs should be linked for certain proof. BarntToust 15:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Echoing @BarntToust's statement. I understand how it can be seen as problematic (also why I'm not voting), but that's not the standard. Furthermore, if it was, that would equally disqualify @Objective3000 and @Silver seren. (It shouldn't, just to be clear, but just making sure that's documented if we're going down this road.) Just10A (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Covid-19 T-ban. Their behaviour here smacks of "Them vs. everybody". Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your sentiment, but what am I expected to do when all these editors are directly invoking my name and mischaracterizing my behavior and using sanction-gaming to push me out of a contentious discussion? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Surprised the CIVILPOV-pushing edit requests flooding my COVID watchlist this past month didn't result in a tban earlier. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well it would have spoiled all the fun, since a CIVILPOV guy is apparently fair game to use as target practice for ad hominems in the talk page Lardlegwarmers (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support given the behavior in this area of editing. And before you reply, Lardle, I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. You don't need to comment on every !vote here.

— The Hand That Feeds You: 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposals re Hob Gadling and civility

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

There are concerns about WP:CIVIL regarding this editor's behaviour. Should a trout be in order? A block? Or an editing restriction when addressing other users? The community will decide.

BarntToust 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Support 1 month block – Hob needs an ultimatum, and the behaviour, even though they're right much of the time, is unacceptable per WP:BRINE. BarntToust 15:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This feels WP:PUNITIVE. jps (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

extended discussion

Sure it would be. As John Wick once said: "Consequences." BarntToust 18:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Tarlby 18:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC) When Keanu Reeves shot Bill Skarsgard in John Wick: Chapter 4, was that punishment? Or was that the consequence of Bill Skarsgard acting in a contentious manner and engaging in general buffoonery, conducting himself way out of place and S(crew)A(round)+F(ind)O(ut)? You conflate "punishment" with there being consequences for tomfoolery. BarntToust 18:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) We're discussing this on Misplaced Pages, not John Wick: Chapter 4, so I'm not sure how that has any relevance. Also, that sounds exactly like a punishment to me. Tarlby 18:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) I'm disappointed you can't understand analogy. 😔 BarntToust 19:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) I suppose that, say, per example, a WP:GENREWARRIOR who edits their respective topics is "punished" when the consequences (block) start to kick in for their general bothersomeness? Look, we can have a whole schpeel about what the definition of "is" is, or we can subvert expectations and be really straightforward about a subtle subject. BarntToust 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose block I don't think this is a sanctionable level of incivility. I'd be ok with sending them a trout. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose block Hob is a long term contributor most often engaged in the thankless task of keeping fringe nuttery from overtaking a range of obscure articles. I don't see a history of problematic incivility that would warrant a block. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support block as per BarntToust. Over the years I've seen the editor be rude and borderline bully, if not outright. It doesn't reflect well on Wiki.Halbared (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• A 1 month block is not likely to change long-term behavior, and would only amount to punishment. That's why we don't do temporary blocks in cases like this. Rather, something is needed that will force Hob to adjust their behavior if they want to continue to edit. An indef block would do it, but seems over the top. One alternative would be an wp:editing restriction. What about:

Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months on WP:AN.

Of course Hob would be free to point out that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is WP:FRINGE, or anything else related to the editorial process, but they would be prohibited from commenting on other editors' ability to come to such conclusions for themselves.

some of the diffs above to which this would apply

I think this would solve a lot of the civility problems we see in the diffs. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we apply the same strict civility standards to all of your edits? Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

extended discussion

ad hominem. BarntToust 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) No. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "I am your father." BarntToust 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) General complaints with the direction of the project and bemoaning that we ain't a meritocracy don't exactly scream "ur contribs and opinions are BS" like they do w/ Hob. BarntToust 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) I just think it's a little rich for someone whose semi-retirement comment bemoans "incompetent editors" at some length to be the person to propose a specific instruction that another editor be prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities. Glass houses, stones, all that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Yeah. I'm glad they didn't direct this at anyone specific, though. I've seen people complain that the Wikimedia Foundation is misappropriating funds to be a charity instead of a web hosting organisation, but long my five years of editing here have been since I've seen anyone with the audacity to take it directly to User talk:Jimbo Wales or the accounts of the board of trustees. (I mean, for the most of the years as an IP it's been semi-protected but hey ain't seen anything about it in the Signpost). BarntToust 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) I mean, as long as nobody is being directly addressed in any scenario of any complaint, whether its Foundation business or Meritocracy grievances or words about the intellectual capacities of editors with opposing viewpoints, and its kept broad and generalised about the overall direction of the project, it's like trying to hold recourse against an editor for having a "I think Democrats are slandering Donald Trump on Misplaced Pages" userbox vs. the editor actually going out in the wild to PA a Democrat over their position in a discussion on Talk:Donald Trump. BarntToust 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Unfortunately for this case, there's diffs galore of Hob going out of their way to call others' opinions and mental capacities bullshit and dull, and thus we are here. BarntToust 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I deal with the same problems Hob does, believe me. Many around here do. WP:CIR is a thing, and yes, I personally believe it should be enforced much more vigorously. But no, I generally don't comment on other editors' intellectual capabilities in discussions. Most editors do not. If you want to discuss this further, please do so at my user talk. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And those words, editors, are the summary of the conclusion drawn at the above "extended discussion" CT. BarntToust 20:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose block Obviously punitive. We don't do that. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block per my comment above. Bishonen | tålk 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC).
• Support editing restriction per Apaugasma's suggestion above. BarntToust 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as I've seen worse stuff going on than "bullshit". BarntToust 15:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions on Hob Gadling - I'm not seeing any clear sanctionable misbehavior here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Punitive. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Just not seeing it as sanctionable. As an aside, the four (count them four) collapses in this filing are an example of why I prefer AE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Pppery, O3000 etc. Tired of efforts to sanction good editors based on concepts of civility which are overly formalistic and don't duly assign weight to context (in my opinion, of course). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose- I also see no obvious justification for a block. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support formal warning or 1 week block as per discussion above. It now also looks that there has been some 'coordinated editing', with all editors aligned to one POV on Covid lab leak page coming out to place ban on OP for reporting this uncivil behaviour. This was bad ban by @The Bushranger: who failed to recognise malign influence of small but well coordinated group of POV editors, who damage the project. IntrepidContributor (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Or, "unconfirmed conspiracies are WP:FRINGE and there's nothing more to it than that", y'know. Have you even read the Misplaced Pages is listening to professional organisations, we have to go against the grain screed Lard leg warmers added to their page? I mean, seriously? WP:AGF says that this is appearance of impropriety, but, y'know, fringe is fringe, and if being a "small but well coordinated group of POV editors" is what you get for adhering to veracity, then Lord help us. BarntToust 20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  malign influence of small but well coordinated group of POV editors And you're complaining about another editor's uncivil behavior? Okay... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I am referring to them as group, and I am claiming here, on administrator talk page, which is for these complaints, that they are coordinated, most likely off-wiki. The vote to ban is not truly representative of community. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Block - send trouts instead. sometimes getting exasperated in a project is different than actual bad-faith edits. if a long-term pattern of incivility, more punitive measure coudl be warranted. diffs brought up don't seem that bad, though they could have been more civil. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• could support apaugasma's suggestion. seems useful. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense" is far too vague for an editing restriction. The problem is "including but not limited to"; if the restriction ended after the word "capabilities" you might have something you could work with (though I would still oppose it). Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Isn't everyone prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities? jp×g🗯️ 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. If I am editing, say, a scientific article, and am forever having to revert an editor who is making errors because they don't understand the subject, it is not a violation of civility to point out that they need to go away and learn about it before trying to edit again. The rather woolly restriction above would stop someone from doing even that. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Black Kite is right on point. Problem is Hob can't do that without highly personal comments of people not being clearheaded, lacking reasoning skills, being prone to believe in crackpotty views and defending crazy ideas, etc. Also, I'm fairly confident that if Hob were restricted from pointing out incompetence, someone else would do so in a civil way. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is why the editing restriction is appealable, this editing restriction is not necessary on regular editors, but appears necessary for them. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly not sanctionable, and hardly even uncivil, especially when viewed in the context of the discussions. At most maybe awarding a barn-trout (is there such a thing?) that celebrates that he didn't actually loose his cool and become uncivil, while at the same time, being rather offputting and feeding the POV-troll. TiggerJay (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Bish. The day we start punishing good contributors for not having a constantly saintly response to awful WP:CIR POV-pushers is the day this project goes to hell. ser! 12:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  We do all the time, our civility policies do not care if you are right in a discussion or good contributors. You are way off the mark in your general assessment. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, it's even part of the civility policy (WP:CIVBRINE). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm well familiar with civility guidelines and that being right doesn't exclude you from them. The point is that we should not mete out sanctions, let alone a month block in situations where there is an occasional display of imperfection when responding to POV pushing - especially considering per the comment above what is being replied to. If this was a genuine WP:CIVIL breach I'd support sanctions but I have not seen anything from Hob above that meets that. ser! 23:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again you seem to be factoring in them being right with your justification because it was responding to POV pushing. Also no one expects perfection, just to do better. The bar is already so low, lets not encourage limbo. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• By all means WP:TROUT. We should all strive to be nicer and not personalize. Believe me, I understand that it is hard in these contexts. jps (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Hob Gadling Editing Restriction by Apaugasma

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

Hob Gadling is prohibited from commenting on other editors' intellectual capabilities, including but not limited to other editors' reasoning skills, their ability to evaluate evidence, and their capacity to identify nonsense. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months at WP:AN.

Hob Gadling is permitted to comment that a source is not RS, that something is not supported by a source, that this or that position is WP:FRINGE, or anything else related to the editorial process, but prohibited from commenting on other editors' ability to come to such conclusions for themselves, enforceable with blocks. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Great contribution is not a get-out-of-jail free card from WP:CIVIL & WP:BITE, complying with this editing restriction should not be difficult. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

this is already being debated above. thought we generally shouldnt make multiple RFCs in a single section like this anyways? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Suspected off-wiki coordination in COVID-19 lab leak topic

It appears there is off-wiki coordination between POV editors going back many years in this topic. It is easy to spot this because complaints of non-neutral wording and unbalanced sourcing are frequent over years and from varied editors, while responses always the same and from same group of editors, often ending up in administrator talk boards like this resulting in quick ban by passing admin unaware of this dynamic. Calls for neutrality rarely ask for more than slightly more neutral wording (like not using wikivoice to describe "misplaced suspicion" in lab leak theory due to outbreak's proximity to lab ), and responses always cursory and blunted, and often even uncivil, which is why OP started this discussion. It common for these editors to immediately start threatening sanctions as soon someone comes near topic asking for more neutral coverage, making it impossible for progress without RFC on every tiny point. It is required for administrators to review coordinated editing in this topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Let be caution you to not draw undue attention to yourself in these discussions, not because there is some grand conspiracy, coordination or cabal at work. Rather because it will cause people to being to look into some of your questionable editing behaviors. This is especially true as it seems like you're doubling-down on your position shared with a now TBAN'ed user, while casting grand aspirations of off-wiki coordination. However, if you have an actual accusation to present formally, please start a new section and be prepared to provide evidence (especially in the form of diffs) and not simply broad claims. Without such, there is no more a claim you might have to editors coordinating to work against your position, than might be said of editors who you align with that have been blocked or banned from FT topics. Please take a moment and look over WP:1AM and let me again caution you against boomerang, which LW learned the hard way. And lets you be tempted like Palpable above, this is not a threat, but please take it as intended, which is a friendly, AGF, suggestion to consider how you proceed from here, as your self-perspective of the situation does not reflect the actual reality of the situation. TiggerJay (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It might actually be easy to spot this because we're all so very, very used to the same old song and dance from POV-pushers by this point, can spot them coming from a mile away, and know that "neutrality" is the last thing they actually want. WP:NOTNEUTRAL explains this very well - as does WP:TINC: There is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be easy to spot if you read dispute where there is actual RfC where consensus (so far) clearly leans in the way of the editor you call POV pusher. Perhaps it was too much for me to ask that you read the diffs properly instead of taking the complaint on face value, but I expect more of you as an admin. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If you could provide diffs or links for your claim of off-wiki collusion that would help. Circumstantial evidence and asking editors to read between the lines isn't very useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you being facetious? Off-wiki coordination is by definition, off-wiki, and diffs are not possible. This is an administrator noticeboard diffs are not the only admissible form of evidence. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an administrator noticeboard, clearly, yes it is, that and that only. The evidence required to prove off-wiki collusion should be sent to WP:ARBCOM, because off-wiki business can't be brought here because, many reasons, though to start, posting reddit links and discord convos usually constitutes a vio of WP:OUTING. So get off of this noticeboard with problems it is unable to address, and see WP:ARBCOM. BarntToust 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, should such evidence exists, don't just open an AE case (again, WP:OUTING) but rather contact the arbitration committee privately. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Coming to ANI about off-wiki collusion compares to a person calling a welder when their plumbing is clogged. BarntToust 14:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Welders too do plumbing,. EEng 22:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Aha. I refer to calling a welder when plumbing is clogged, not really installed or replaced. Usually when I call the local plumber to unclog my master bathroom toilet, a minimal amount of sparks are produced during their work. BarntToust 23:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have evidence of off-wiki coordination this should be sent privately to the arbitration committee. If you don't have evidence you never should have opened this thread anyway. Either way the right thing to do is to withdraw this accusation from this venue. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You apparently only read "diffs" and not "or links". Unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS shouldn't be anywhere, let alone ANI. If you have any proof take it to ARBCOM per Simonm223. If you don't have actual proof then you should retract your claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

So... are ya gonna cast ASPERSIONS or are you gonna send Arbitrarion some links to, idk, discord servers, IRC rooms, anything? Bans—they're what happens when an editor has, nearly a fetish, for trying to include information—at every possible turn—that goes against medical professionals' standpoints. Consensus in the scientific community establishes an idea and discounts another, Misplaced Pages covers the major, non-fringe outlooks on subjects. BarntToust 11:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Don't play devil's advocate for POV-pushers. You get nowhere with it. Unless you have damning proof that editors are banding together behind-the-curtains in illicit fashion, I encourage you to strike some text using <s> your unwarranted remarks here </s> BarntToust 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• I suggest that IntrepidContributor should either provide evidence to Arbcom or immediately withdraw this accusation. Either way this topic of discussion should be closed as inappropriate to AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Boomerang. IntrepidContributor has repeatedly made aspersions and assumptions of bad faith against many editors, both here and in the above section, none of which are supported by any evidence whatsoever. Making such baseless accusations the focus of an ANI subsection is a waste of editors' time, and when combined with their disruptive actions elsewhere (e.g., here) it indicates that a time-out is required. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I want to give them the chance to withdraw their accusation before calling for a boomerang. But if they refuse to do so or just disappear from the thread with the comments out there then, yeah, it's probably that time. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  We now have this, which demonstrates that IntrepidContributor has chosen to triple- (quadruple?) down on their evidence-free aspersions against multiple editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  OK that was doubling down after they got clear instructions about how to handle it from more than one editor here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Instructions? What are you? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry for not being clear. By "time-out" I mean a topic ban from COVID-19, broadly construed. I can understand why the repeated, evidence-free aspersions and assumptions of bad faith, which have yet to be withdrawn, justify an indef. I just don't see how this approach is a benefit to the project. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Boomerang. If it was just this out-of-pocket subsection, I would agree with Simonm223 on giving some time of day, but since Intrepid's aspersions have been pervasive throughout this report according to JoJo Anthrax's motion, and also considering that they have recently carried out a deletion that ended up being improper to the point of disruption, a boomerang needs to happen so this improper conduct can be addressed. BarntToust 15:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• There was WP:ARBSCE three years ago. If IntrepidContributor has any evidence they should go to Arbcom for WP:ARBSCE2. Otherwise, they should retract and strike their aspersions here ASAP. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Boomerang After being advised that they should privately contact the arbitration committee this editor instead just spammed the accusation into the comments of an AE filing about someone who shares their POV. This is inappropriate and disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Boomerang IntrepidContributor was pointed to WP:BOOMERANG eleven days ago in this filing and knows what it means. This is yet more worthy of a BOOM than the OP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to give IntrepidContributor one last chance to strike their comment, otherwise I don't see how this can end anyway but badly for them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Following warnings and warnings about not casting aspersions and making baseless claims of collusion, IntrepidContributor ignored them and has taken the same aspersions and baseless accusations of collusion to AE anyways. Their chances have run out. BarntToust 16:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What comment exactly you would like me to strike? That it "appears" there is off-wiki coordination, or that are POV editors, or it goes back many years? I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on this answer, yeah, I think the best course of action is to encourage IC to look for other parts of the encyclopedia where they can work collaboratively and to be firmly invited to cease editing anything related to COVID-19. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This comment, I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you, makes it sound like you are either bullshitting everyone about having evidence, or you are more worried about running everyone around the corner like dogs at a fire hydrant rather than actually helping out and exposing some serious fuckery that's going on in the topic. BarntToust 18:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor As an uninvolved admin looking over this, I suggest that you either confirm your submission of evidence to ARBCOM or cease your allegations of off-wiki collusion. You've not provided any evidence/diffs for on-wiki collusion and have repeatedly made accusations. This is unacceptable. WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP EvergreenFir (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

How are my supposed to confirm submission of evidence and to who? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Damn it, dude, you ARE running us around the bend like dogs at a fire hydrant! As has been instructed for you to do numerous times: Go to the page --> WP:ARBCOM <-- and look for the instructions to submit reports, and put your "evidence" there. Confirm that you did so here, and we will trust that you have: whether or not you actually did matters to nobody, because the only thing that will matter is that and if you did, a case that is none of our concern will open, and then if that case finds your "evidence" true, then those of us involved in the conspiracy will be put to arbitration either behind the scenes or at WP:AE. BarntToust 18:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Or as the uninvolved Admin notes, an arb will confirm that they have received something from you, thus this tangent will close. BarntToust 18:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Say you've emailed them and I'm sure ScottishFinnishRadish or HJ Mitchell or another arb would be able to confirm receipt of a substantive and meaningful email containing your evidence. If they can confirm it, I would close this discussion. If not, I would look at WP:BOOMERANG EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I will email them in the morning (EET). I didn't plan on this extra work load today. But I have enough diffs to make the report by then. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You are putting this off as if you have nothing to report. First IntrepidContributor says "I have diffs", then present them. No, it's "I have off-wiki collusion", then go to ARBCOM. Cycling back-and-fuckin'-forth between this dog-fire hydrant nonsense, and finally, now we're back at "I have enough diffs". And you ask, "to who  ?", and after reiterating everything we have said numerously through this thread, you say I will email them in the morning. You had enough time today to open this thread, then throw a blunderbuss of accusations everywhere, and you had enough time to bring your bullshit to AE. Yet, you don't have enough time to list diffs and give explanations to the arb committee? I smell a load of horse shit.

I invite the next uninvolved admin to issue a block to IntrepidContributor for general disruptive editing.

Yours in Buddha, Jesus, and SpongeBob, BarntToust 19:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor - by my watch it is now in the afternoon EET (17:55), can you confirm here if you have actually submitted the email earlier today as promised here? TiggerJay (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish @HJ Mitchell -- any chance you can confirm if @IntrepidContributor has contacted ARBCOM in the last 24 hours? TiggerJay (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in my inbox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think at this point IC has failed to make good on their "I'll do it in the morning" commitment. And they still decline to withdraw their personal attacks and baseless accusations. Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you. This is a direct accusation against an editor here and a nonsensical statement about the arbs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

as do you No I struck don't and I've had enough of being tarred with baseless struck. Whether that's here or at lableak talk page, somewhere I rarely comment on a topic I rarely edit. You appear to only be able to see editors you disagree with through a battleground mentality, and as part of some conspiratorial cabal.

Unless an Arb can confirm that evidence has been provided, and shows something I've obviously missed, I propose IntrepidContributor be blocked for WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, they said they think the arbs already know. So I guess they're in on the conspiracy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000, please Read that again in full context. What comment exactly you would like me to strike? That it "appears" there is off-wiki coordination, or that are POV editors, or it goes back many years? I would be happy to present evidence to arbcom members in private by email, but I think they know already, as do you. This was only a smartass, tongue-in-cheek remark about how "everybody here knows about fight club, but doesn't talk about it". Like, a smartass remark that "POV-pushing and cabals are an open secret knownst to the gentry" or something. No arb has been notified, the editor is being a smartass. BarntToust 20:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I read this two ways, I thought you misread their text 😅 you're probably just being funny. lol sorry. The editor still needs a block tho. BarntToust 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. But at this point, not sure I can tell when they are being serious or trolling. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000, @BarntToust - I would hope the next uninvolved admin would see that I gave conditions for IntrepidContributor. If those are not met, they will be blocked. There's no rush here and carrying on this discussion calling for blood isn't exactly productive.

If another admin find clear and convincing evidence warranting a block of Intrepid Contributor, then they should block them. Otherwise, I'd ask that the "offer" remain. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would block them now, @EvergreenFir, and I would wait until a member of ARBCOM confirms—not what IntrepidContributor submitted—but that what they've submitted is legitimate evidence of what they claim is happening. At that confirmation, and with the ARBCOM member's blessing to the blocking admin, then the editor would be unblocked. The editor is fucking with us even as we outline the processes to make ARBCOM reports, and their other contributions listed in this report such as improper, half-assed deletions they won't bother to complete properly are screaming NOTHERE. BarntToust 20:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with BT... (except the potentially uncivil, but probably warranted uncivil language)... Beyond this discussion, IC is otherwise being disruptive to the project including blanking pages with a lousy excuse.. Since they had the time to start this discussion that was apparently so urgent and a big deal, yet not the time to complete the necessary paperwork, coupled with all of the other factors, it seems like blocking to prevent further disruption is prudent. TiggerJay (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks for concurring. As the community has above developed a consensus that an editor using profanity to describe actions and behavior is not prohibited, I'm completely safe in calling IC's behavior shitty (WP:SPADE), so long as I make no direct remarks about IC personally. I don't believe I've done that. BarntToust 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

As Jay said, besides the report, they have been being disruptive in other parts on Misplaced Pages, and considering the fact that they have been disruptive during the very processes of ANI itself, besides the unfounded claims of cabals they spew, there has been enough bullshit going on for a NOTHERE block. BarntToust 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Evergreen, forgive us our impatience. Some of us spend all too much time in CTOPs. It's wearing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If they show arbs proof of their accusations then fine, otherwise the they need to stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

My suspicion is that what IC actually has is like 2 diffs of some veteran editor saying to some other veteran editor "hey you should email me!" or something similar. Which is entirely normal, part of the way wikipedia works, and not "off-wiki coordination". Or some similar conspiratorial nonsense. When you're a hammer (conspiracy-believing POV-pusher) everything looks like a nail (proof that all the mean people who disagree with you are actually part of a secret government agency that's coordinating against you and laughing about you behind your back). Nothing that happens on the lab leak page requires or even suggests there is off-wiki coordination. Where contentious articles exist on wiki, there is almost always a small group of veteran editors who tangentially edit around that topic and watch their watchlists like hawks to make sure POV CPUSHing SPAs don't ruin the beauty that is a truly NPOV contentious article. They don't need to coordinate, because they generally share in common a belief in the five pillars and edit accordingly.I am really very excited to see what IC comes up with. — Shibbolethink 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I honestly think what it comes down to is selection bias. The sorts of people who frequent the Fringe Theory noticeboard and who don't get mad and leave quickly tend to be skeptical, critical and materialist. And critical materialist skeptics tend to look negatively on conspiracy theories, pseudo science and quackery. For a conspiracy minded person there's all these like-minded nay-sayers saying variations of "that's a conspiracy theory" and so they... do what conspiracy minded people do and assume it's a conspiracy. Really it's just a messageboard whose topic filters for a certain subjectivity. Simonm223 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Boomerang I only speak for the quad-corner-tri-city and metro areas cabal, not the greater WP:MEDRS cabal, but I agree a boomerang is in order. Extra Jesus Hold The Satan!! (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Boomerang means topic ban, I presume. But y'all would be better served to make this kind of thing clear in your arguments. My worry when it comes to this matter is primarily with IntrepidContributor's claim of coordinated cabals suppressing the truth functioning rather as something like accusation in a mirror (and apologies for the possible Godwin's Law implications). In any case, and even if that's not what's going on, I have a hard time seeing the net positive in this topic coming from IntrepidContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and generally think the problems on this topic stem from a lack of strong WP:CTOP enforcement which hopefully we are now coming to terms with. jps (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• That would be my interpretation. A topic ban is definitely in order. Maybe for all conspiracy theories as well as anything COVID related. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

TBan would be appropriate no matter what. But IMO these ongoing accusations should result in an indef block for NOTHERE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Boomerang since they clearly did not heed advice to drop the stick and want to persist in their claims, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues. It has now been 20 hours since they posted so far, and I would be very curious to know if they actually did submit the email evidence that they claimed they would email them in the morning (EET). - It is now 5:54pm (1754) in EET, so if they haven't yet, then it should result in indef block for legal threats and excessive disruption. If they did fulfill their promise, then a TBAN is still most certainly in order. TiggerJay (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Did I miss something, what legal threats? PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  For as much as this goofy goober IC ticks me off, I will give them one, one note: threatening to send people to the arbcom is not a legal threat. It's a Misplaced Pages "court", not an IRL court. WP:NLT doesn't apply here, but a whole heck of a lot of else does. BarntToust 13:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ah okay thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Uh, the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee is not a court of law? jp×g🗯️ 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Block and TBAN already, this is beyond WP:BOOMERANG at this point, so have no idea why people are !voting that the editor shouldn't be immune from scrutiny; based on BOOMERANG they never were in the first place, and this discussion went full circle boomerang instantly. Anyway, this has wasted my time reading this section, I can only assume the other sections also wasted a lot of time. The editor is clearly being disruptive, casting aspersions, and is wasting everyone's time. Please don't allow this editor to drag this on any further than it already has been dragged out, such as requesting delays from ARBCOM to provide evidence or otherwise. CNC (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• <Final Jeopardy music plays> I can't help but notice that IntrepidContributor has gone quiet since promising to expose the cabal to Arbcom... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  You too, huh? Shall we ping someone uninvolved for a block due to legal threats and general disruption, or are you ready to do the deed? TiggerJay (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger, I endorse you making the block on IntrepidContributor for NOTHERE and DISRUPTIVE. BarntToust 23:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Dinglelingy

No edits to mainspace since 2016. Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

(Should we continue to keep all similar issues documented in the same monster section?)

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

This WP:SPA seems to dip in and out of this controversy whenever things get "interesting", and here comes now again dipping in with some fairly spicy arguments on the Lab Leak theory talkpage: ,

None of this user's contributions in this area are net positives for Misplaced Pages, and I submit that it would have been better had the proposed WP:NOTHERE block been enacted when first proposed: . I guess a topic ban from COVID-19 could work too?

jps (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• 115 edits ever, and only 4 minor ones to article space. Last seen arguing on the talkpages of COVID conspiracy articles in 2021 for which they were warned multiple times, and back after four years doing the same thing ? That's the definition of WP:NOTHERE. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

as the closer of several skating AfDs, I have no issue with a DRV if @Moscow Connection or any other editor believes I closed it in error. However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules. That isn't grounds for a DRV nor a report against @Bgsu98 who is nominating based on community consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. Liz 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"However MC, you seem to acknowledge these skaters don't meet the rules and have an issue with the rules."
— They don't meet WP:NSKATE, but most (if not all) are famous people and should meet WP:GNG. Therefore, caution should be exercised when deleting. I don't think a national silver medalist can be unknown, it is just that reliable sources are hard or even impossible to find now. It appears that some years ago the rules didn't require WP:GNG, so skater articles were created with simply "He advanced to the free skate at the 2010 World Championships" or "He is a national senior silver medalist", which was enough for an article to not be "picked at". The editors who created skater articles back then probably didn't want to do more than a bare minimum and didn't care to add reliable sources beyond the ISU website profile. One who decides to delete a skater article must keep in mind that reliable sources probably existed at the time the article was created. Cause, as I've said, these skaters arn't unknown. They represented their countries at the highest possible level of competition.
(I've recently noticed that Google News don't go as far back as before. Some web sites deleted their older content. Some have even completely disappeared. Like, I mostly edit music articles, and I've noticed that if didn't create some articles 10 years ago, I wouldn't be able to create them now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if being a junior national medallist was enough in and of itself, WP:V has always been a thing. You can't just state some fact that would meet a specific notability guideline like WP:NSKATE without providing verification of the claim without the possibility that the article will be nominated at AFD or redirected. TarnishedPath 02:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi and Liz: A WP:DRV, a deletion review? Is it maybe possible to undelete "Lilia Biktagirova" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova)? Cause I was searching for sources for Alexandra Ievleva and found something like a short biography of hers, two paragraphs long.
Here: "Тренер Трусовой, почти партнерша Жубера, резонансная Иевлева: кто соревновался с Туктамышевой на ее 1-м ЧР (2008)".
And again, it was Bgsu98 who nominated the article back in May. And he was told, I'm quoting User:Hydronium Hydroxide: "There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale." --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

After looking at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova, I think no one will say that I was incorrect about how people vote at AfD. There's even a comment like this: "WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet." And then a more experienced user noted that you should actually search for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but no one actually searched and the article was deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have also found an interview with Lilia Biktagirova: . Yes, it is an interview, but there an editorial paragraph about her (an introductiion). There also a short paragraph here → . Not much, but considering she competed almost 20 years ago... --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes @Moscow Connection you're welcome to file a deletion review or request that @Liz provide you the draft to improve with the sourcing you identified. Neither of us can unilaterally overturn the community discussion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and not an ANI-worthy issue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is a content dispute. I think the user violates WP:BEFORE, otherwise it would be impossible to create tons of nominations. And please look at the AfD page, all his nominations simply say: "Non-notable figure skater", "Non-notable figure skater, PROD removed", "Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements" or "Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals". It is obvious that there's no WP:BEFORE research and as little consideration as "humanly possible".
Okay, since Bgsu98 pinged someone in his support, I'll ping BeanieFan11 and Doczilla. (Sorry for disturbing you, BeanieFan11 and Doczilla.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

When closing one AfD, I made some observations about that day's many AfDs and noted in that one close regarding Bgsu98: "The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them." In my meager opinion, the massive number of rapid deletion nominations rather strongly might suggest, at the very least, a lack of due diligence regarding each and a likely violation of WP:BEFORE. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Moscow Connection claims to be polite, yet wrote the following: "random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom". Pinging Shrug02 who also found that comment objectionable. I have made an effort to thank editors who have participated in my AFD's, regardless of whether they have always agreed with my findings, because AFD's that end in "no consensus" do nothing but waste everyone's time.

He has been adversarial and confrontational in every communication to me. From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hanna Harrell: "By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?"

I always appreciate constructive feedback when it's delivered in a courteous and professional manner. Moscow Connection seems incapable of courtesy or professionalism. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• C'mon, User:Bgsu98, civility goes both ways. We can discuss the value of these articles and the AFD process without attacking each other. Flinging mud doesn't give anyone the moral high ground. Liz 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I apologize, Liz; I am just at my wit's end with this editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Here's my take, User:Bgsu98. You have been taking extremely BOLD actions now for most of 2024, proposing the removal of certain articles that are now being judged to be of non-notable article subjects. I think we have even had other discussions about these mass deletions on ANI before when they were still being done in the PROD world. When you take on a project like cleaning house of hundreds of articles that other editors spent time creating and improving, you can expect pushback even if you have policy on your side. Any action that seems "mass" can cause alarm in regular editors who don't believe sufficient care is being taken before tagging these articles for deletion. While I might agree with the overall goal of your project, I think it's important to have empathy for editors who have contributed to these articles over the years that are now being regularly deleted. Most of my work involves the deletion of pages and I still feel some pangs of guilt over removing articles that editors have poured hours into, even if i know they don't meet Misplaced Pages's current standards. It's a job that must be done but I know that it's disappointing to many of our content creators. Liz 05:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  As I have been pinged on this discussion I thought I would 1 confirm I did find @Moscow Connection to be somewhat rude and condescending in their repeated assertions that those who vote on these skating AFDs do not do any research and are basically sheep just voting delete and 2 most of these nominated bios are a few sentences or just a table of stats copy and pasted so @Liz I doubt anyone spent hours putting them together. Finally I feel @Moscow Connection is now looking to use any procedure they can to try and besmirch @Bgsu98 and derail their valid efforts to remove some of the seemingly thousands of sports bios that do not meet current Misplaced Pages guidelines and are of interest to few, if any, general reader. If anyone is in need of reprimand or sanction over this matter (which has been blown out of all proportion), it is @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why should I be "reprimanded"? My comments about "people at AfD' were non-specific, while Bgsu98 directly accused me of lying. (In the Russian Misplaced Pages, he would be blocked for this "automatically".)
  Also, a note to admins: Can it be that Bgsu98 finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Misplaced Pages, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil".
  And, btw, please note that Bgsu98 summoned Shrug02 here for the purpose of supporting him. I haven't summoned anybody. (Maybe some people would notice, but Bgsu98 deleted my ANI notice from his talk page immediately.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Moscow Connection I am going to be generous and presume English is not your first language so your choice of wording might be a little off. However, I was not "summoned" or asked to support anyone. @Bgsu98 pinged me and I gave my view. I did not say you SHOULD be reprimanded, I said IF anyone was to be sanctioned over this matter then it would be you. My reasoning for this is your attacking @Bgsu98, making broad statements questioning the intelligence of people at AFD discussions and using this forum incorrectly. As for what happens on Russian Misplaced Pages, that is their busines. I hope you have read @HyperAccelerated's comment as I think it sums this situation up nicely. Shrug02 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't questioned anybody's intelligence. It is just my experience that many people trust the nominator and vote "delete" without much thinking. They maybe quickly visit the article in discussion, look at the "References" section, that's enough for them. And they typically don't speak Russian or Hebrew or whatever. So, when they see "Selepen", they hardly go to yandex.ru and search for "Шелепень". --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, "summon" is not the right word. Sorry. "He asked you to come". But that "I am going to be generous" sentence doesn't look polite. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  According to this, "summon" and "ask to" are the same thing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Moscow Connection

  Cambridge Dictionary definition of summon (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/summon) is "to order someone to come to or be present at a particular place, or to officially arrange a meeting of people."

  No-one ORDERED me to take part in this discussion.

  If there is so much significant coverage for these skaters then the simple solution is for you to add it to the articles in question with suitable references and then AFDs will end as keep.

  I am now finished with this discussion and I hope the admins step in and end it soon.

  All the best to everyone involved. Shrug02 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Moscow Connection wrote the following in his original complaint: ”…decided to mass-delete articles that don't comply with WP:NSKATE… I am sure most articles he deleted had the right to stay per WP:GNG.” I don’t have the ability to “mass-delete” anything, and if most of those articles met WP:GNG, the users at AFD would have voted to keep them. Just two examples of MC’s falsehoods. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  OK. But you have also mass-prodded articles, that's the same as "deleting". (Like a "delayed deletion".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me help you out here, Moscow Connection. As it happens, Bgsu98 is a veteran editor with both tens of thousands of edits and a long history of editing skating articles. He is not, as you imply, some bomb thrower hellbent in laying waste to skating articles. Moving right along ...

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

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

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

He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

“Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me help you out here, Ravenswing. I suspect he's saying it's "very unfair" because it seems to him like it's not fair! jp×g🗯️ 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Given it is acknowledged that large numbers of articles on figure skaters do not meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria (What happened is that the notability guidelines for some sportspeople were changed a few years ago. And a large chunk of figure skater articles (most of them, honestly) are now outside of WP:NSKATE.), I’m not really seeing anything unexpected here. —

Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in all of this, I’m reading that OP gets into a dispute about AfDs and then goes to ANI to make their grievances more visible to admins. Does OP not realize that admins are primarily responsible for moderating, closing, and relisting AfD discussions? Also, as someone else pointed above, this is a content dispute: it does not meet the standard for being urgent, chronic, or intractable. OP’s choice to insult another user by calling their behavior “crazy” multiple times is inappropriate and makes me believe that they might have just thrown a WP: BOOMERANG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

the bar for notability for skaters went up, someone came along and started nominating based on the new guidelines, and OP is upset. that seems to be the gist. i was not involved but didn't that happen in the porno biography area a few years ago? some change raised the bar so a lot of stuff was deleted. ValarianB (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• I do heavily advise slowing down on the nominations. There is not enough editors in the figure skating topic area to give the appropriate amount of time to search for sources for these articles. To be honest, I'm sure that a good number of ones that were closed as "delete" were actually notable but no one did any in-depth BEFORE search (many would not have coverage in English and the coverage would be in foreign newspaper archives). I asked the user yesterday about the extent of the BEFORE searches and only got "Yes, but not as much as some people like" – and then I asked what search was done for the most recent example, from a few hours prior, and they said they had no recollection (which is concerning IMO, to have no idea what searches you did for an article you nominated a few hours prior). Note that the AFD rationales are often really poor; many are simply Non-notable figure skater, which doesn't say much of anything. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I will slow down on nominations and focus on improving other aspects of the the FS articles, such as updating the infoboxes and tables to conform with our MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  And @Moscow Connection, you can help by, when the nomination involves a person whose native language is written in non-Latin characters (e.g., Cyrillic or Hebrew), replying in the AfD with a link to the native language web search for that person to help establish the presence or absence of notability support. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  But there are 45 (!) articles nominated for deletion. I looked at the AfD page and understood that it was physically impossible to do anything. So I decided to bring this situation to the attention of the Misplaced Pages community. It is easy to create 1000 AfD nominations with the same rationale ("Non-notable figure skater"), but even these mere 45 AfD nominations utterly scared me and discouraged me from even looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating. (I really can't do anything. I have some other articles, the ones I created, that need attention. And I have long "to do" lists that wait for years to be taken care of.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  The answer being, "So?" If neither the article creators nor anyone else has sought to provide proper sourcing for these articles -- the Ievleva article, for example, was created seventeen years ago -- then that just suggests no one's given enough of a damn to bother, and Misplaced Pages will survive these stubs' loss. It is not, nor ever has been, "physically impossible" to do anything about mass deletions; that's ridiculous. An AfD discussion is open for seven days, and it's easy to find adequate sources for an article ... certainly, in the cases of these Russian skaters, for a native speaker of Russian such as yourself. If you can't, the answer isn't that there's some flaw in the process or that Bgsu98 is pulling a fast one on us all. The answer is that the subjects are non-notable, and don't merit Misplaced Pages articles. Ravenswing 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The nominator has agreed to slow down, so the point is kind of moot, but I still wanted to make clear: Ravenswing, 45 AFDs rapidly is ridiculous, especially when next-to-no-BEFORE is done and there previously was no indication of stopping – remember that there's only a few editors in the topic area – and many of these, which are notable, require more than simple Google searches to find the coverage that demonstrates notability (i.e., for many, the coverage would be in places such as difficult-to-find offline newspapers in foreign languages) – making so many nominations rapidly without appropriate searches will inevitably result in some truly notable ones being deleted due to the lack of effort. While you may not care about the stubs, others do, and simply because the two editors who drive-by to the nom and say "Delete per above" didn't find coverage absolutely does not equate to the subject being confirmed non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, I have attempted to do something yesterday. I voted and commented on two nominations. ("Alexandra Ievleva" and "Viktoria Vasilieva".) Cause these two are Russian figure skaters, and I know they are famous enough. Immediately a user came and wholesale dismissed all the sources I found. I don't really want to play that game, it's too tiresome. I have found another source for Alexandra Ievleva just now. Let's see what the outcome will be.
  But really, I can't do it anymore. Maybe if these were articles I created, I would invest into searching for sources. Now, I just tried a little bit and saw that some people really want to delete these articles for whatever reason. There are a few people actually searching for sources at some nominations, but mostly it's just that old "you go and provide third-party reliable sources independent of the subject, so I can look at them and dismiss them" game.
  Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept. (Okay, there are mostly interviews and short news about the figure skaters placing here and there or missing some events, but those sources are reliable enough. And one can actually take the sources into account and leave the articles be.)
  By the way, I have tried searching on what was once Yandex News, but the news search doesn't work anymore. (Here's an example.) There's nothing prior to 2024 when Yandex sold its assets including the news engine. And I can remember when the list of news articles there went back to 2003 or so... --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  What I’m reading is that you don’t like how AfD works, and there hasn’t been any departure from normal processes. ANI is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. HyperAccelerated (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if this looks like a ramble. These were initially two or three separate replies. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

RadioKAOS, I'm not going to argue about whose "view takes priority" in the area of the sum of human knowledge but in an AFD discussion, decisions are made by determining the consensus of the editors who bothered to show up and present compelling policy-based arguments. That is typically editors who are active on Misplaced Pages and have an opinion about an article, not any scholar coming up with estimates on the necessary number of articles we should have. How many AFDs do you participate in on a regular basis? And there is no one here that who will attempt to "suppress" your argument. As long as you are not personally attacking any editors, I think you are free to have whatever opinions you do have about this project. No penalty. Liz 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: The problem is that these editors who "bother to show up" don't equally represent the community. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are some people who are mainly active on AfD and who act as "gatekeepers".
A normal editor can easily not notice when a page is nominated for deletion, but the AfD regulars will come and vote "delete".
Also, I wonder how it happened that the NSKATE guidelines were changed so drastically. I think I have found a discussion about that but I am not sure. A user who was tired of people voting "keep per WP:NSPORT", proposed to get rid of the "Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)" completely. And then there was a discussion with around 70 people attending. But for some reason at least some sports got spared the worst fate (or got out intact), while figure skating was "destroyed". Moreover, the Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports) revision history shows signs of edit warring. So it is just possible that the "deletionists" were the most active/agressive and they won. Some sports wikiprojects defended their sports, and some like WikiProject Figure skating weren't active at the time and didn't do anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, I guess you can choose to call them "gatekeepers" but I consider them dedicated volunteers. The number of editors who participate in AFDs has declined for at least the past two years, so if you can think of a way to get more editors involved, or if you want to help out by spending, let's say, 10 hours a week evaluating articles and sources in AFD deletion discussions, your help would be welcomed. But don't criticize the editors who actually show up and help. Without them, we would only have the opinions of editors who nominate articles for deletion and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of those nominated articles were simpy deleted without any feedback at all from other editors. Liz 06:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was. (I could swear my source was third-party and reliable and independent, but they said it was not and bombarded me with some random links to the WP space.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I had a look at the AfDs you participated in and I think I can explain why there. In this AfD all the links you provided were to sports.ru - these are not independent because sports.ru is the website for the Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member. They thus don't demonstrate the subject has any independent coverage of their athletic career. I hope this helps. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You act like some people on AfD who dismiss sources "for the sake of dismissing". Why did even think it was a website for some "Russian sporting body of whom the subject is a member"? It is just a sports news website (a sports portal) like any other. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

ru:Sports (сайт). Really, that's quite similar to what happens on AfD. I can go deep into Google Search, spend lots of time, but some people will just say "not third-party" or smth like this. Where do they see that and how do they come to their conclusions? It's a mystery to me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

(nods) Heck, "some authority" came up with canards such as that we all ought to take 10,000 steps a day, drink eight glasses of water a day, and that our basal body temps are all 98.6. I likewise decline to bow before the suspect, threadbare wisdom of "one estimate" that we need 104,000,000 articles ... speaking of serious denial. (grins) Ravenswing 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ravenswing:, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found.
And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7.
I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please be careful with the WP:ASPERSIONS, Moscow Connection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

My 2 cents. In my experience, Bgsu clearly does not conduct BEFORE searches (and seems proud of it), ignores actual coverage of the subjects (even when present in the articles), mass nominates batches of articles (50 in 30 minutes is a hilarious example), consistently fails to adhere to AGF, quickly re-nominates articles when the result is not to their liking, inaccurately summarizes examples of SIGCOV when they are provided in discussions, and tops it off by clearing their XfD logs. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a significant number of evidence-free aspersions you're casting, would you like to evidence them? Incidentally, mass-nominating articles isn't necessarily an issue; I have done it in the past but I still examined each article before nominating them in one batch. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not wish to dig through hundreds of AfDs, no. Just providing what I've gathered in my experience. And I disagree that 50 AfDs in half an hour is not an issue.

Here is one example of the types of responses you can expect to get when you provide SIGCOV in one of his discussions: Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started. JTtheOG (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And here is an example of the nom wholly ignoring GNG and insisting on using deprecated NSPORTS guidelines after SIGCOV was added to the article. Dozens and dozens of more examples. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Another example of ignoring SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @Black Kite: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 more examples, all within a week of eachother and many with SIGCOV already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is an example from two days ago where they nominated a skater who finished top 4 at the World Championships because they assumed the sources in the article were the only sources available on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

OK this AFD, coupled with the historical ones, is very concerning. I understand that not every editor is going to be able to find every source, but it appears that Bgsu98 does not even bother looking. I would support a topic ban from AFDs. GiantSnowman 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Here and here is an example of four users expressing their concerns about BEFORE searches and their misunderstanding of notability policies. More recently, concerns were raised here and here, although bgsu deleted the latter from their talk page with the message Stay off my talk page. You have some nerve using the term “good will” considering your appalling behavior. JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And here are More and more and more and more and more and more and more examples of nom ignoring the concept of GNG and/or entirely disregarding SIGCOV already present in the article. As Liz notes here, close to 100 articles were deleted through PROD before I was able to contest them. Many of these that I contested and were later kept in AfDs with clear GNG passes are present among the examples I've given. JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - anything more recent than May 2024? GiantSnowman 22:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Going through their contributions, I see about a week ago there was a period of 30 minutes where they did seven AfDs -- not what I would call a paragon of thoroughness. But fifty in a half-hour is absolutely absurd regardless of when it happened -- I take more time than that to line up a shot when I throw a tissue into the trash can at the other end of the room. jp×g🗯️ 14:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide some examples of a) a number of nominations in a short period of time and b) several AFDs where the rationale is deeply flawed. GiantSnowman 21:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If you go to 10 May 2024 here, you get exactly 50 nominations in 30 minutes. A good number of those were kept per AFDstats. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks - see above, I think we need an AFD topic ban. GiantSnowman 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, let's start with that I'm a frequent participant at ANI, and I no more "came here to defend" anyone than any other editor who's chimed in here. I dismissed those sources wholesale because I burned some time to look over each and every one of them (as did more than one editor), and found that not a single one of them provided the "significant coverage" in detail to the subjects that the GNG requires. As it happens, I have edited skating articles in the past -- you're not claiming to have truly gone through my whole twenty-year contribution history, are you?

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

• I've participated in a lot of these AfDs, I believe mostly !voting delete, and I've gotta say I am not happy to see it implied that AfD participants were blindly going along with Bgsu. I guarantee that I perform thorough searches on every single AfD I !vote it, especially these mass-noms with essentially no rationale. Bgsu's noms are, for better or worse, fairly accurate and generally result in the deletion of articles that should be deleted. However, I have seen several examples of incivility and assuming bad faith from this user (although I have experienced neither myself) and I agree that the sheer quantity of nominations does not promote a healthy level of community input. The individual noms are generally okay, but mass noms like this one I found today, tried participating in, and gave up on can be a little overwhelming. I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. Toadspike 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I did say a few days ago I wasn't going to engage in this discussion any further but since I keep getting notifications about it I figured I'd weigh in as the conversation seems to have gone in a totally different direction. As @Toadspike and others have pointed out I too am not happy that it is being implied that people who voted in these AFDs are blindly following @Bgsu98 without doing any independent research. I refuted this on the figure skating talk page when this all started and on this page. Also, as has been previously pointed out by other editors, this particular discussion began with @Moscow Connection basically not liking the rules on significant coverage and then coming to this forum to seek retribution against @Bgsu98. Now it seems that their improper use of this forum, ref bombing of articles and general complaining that they don't like something and how unfair it is in their opinion, may actually lead to them getting what they want. This sets a very poor precedent that if you don't like something on Misplaced Pages and you jump up and down and wail about it enough you can get your way. Yes @Bgsu98 probably nominates too many similar articles at one time but they have agreed to slow down now, and yes they have nominated articles for AFD that have then been kept because significant coverage was found, but they have also nominated a lot of articles which have not been found to have significant coverage and have subsequently been deleted following the due, consensus based procedure and closed as such by an admin. @Moscow Connection is already seeking to have articles which have been deleted following AFDs unilaterally reopened. If you now sanction @Bgsu98 we may as well just give Jimmy Wales a call and ask him to hand over Misplaced Pages to the whims and wants of @Moscow Connection Shrug02 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I haven't asked anybody to give Misplaced Pages over to me. What do you mean by "unilaterally reopened"? If you are refering to me asking Star Mississippi to undelete the "Lilia Biktagirova" article, what's wrong with it? It was deleted without a proper Google search, and I have found some sources for her. Just look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Biktagirova. At the very end, a user that goes by the name of Kvng, noticed: No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG, but that was all, no one did anything. You and another user seem to have claimed here that you do a proper search on every Bgsu98's nomination, but I don't see you on that AfD page.
    You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Misplaced Pages or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Misplaced Pages from her. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I've decided to save "Alexandra Ievleva" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Ievleva) and I've already found a couple of dozen articles talking about her. Yes, maybe the others will say those are mostly interviews and the Women's Sport website is not good enough, but I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search (I tried to add different additional key words, and every time I found something new). --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    1 you don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what, 2 now you say I "don't know how to search" which is yet another unfounded suggestion that I don't make any effort before giving opinions on AFDs, 3 you don't know what searches were done on Lilia Biktagirova and neither do I, 4 I wasn't involved in that discussion and I try to focus more on adding to articles then deleting them, 5 my point was, and is, you don't like the rules so you have launched a campaign of complaining to try to get your way instead of going through the proper channels and seeking to get consensus to alter said rules. Frankly I'm tired of this and of you belittling everyone else as if you are the only person who knows what is right and are somehow able to read the minds and intentions of everyone else. Go ahead and, as you put it, "save" your Russian skaters. I genuinely hope you do and that the articles are filled with interesting and well-sourced information. That's the aim of Misplaced Pages to inform the population about things worth knowing. Shrug02 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    • "You don't know if I read Russian, Chinese, Martian or what"
      — What I do is called abductive reasoning. What you just did by claiming you can read Martian, I honestly don't know.
      I've started this discussion because I saw the user's 45 nominations at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating and that scared me a lot. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

      It's called ironic humour and, with everything going on in the world right now, if a Misplaced Pages AFD scared you a lot then you are obviously in the very fortunate position to have so few worries. Anyway I'm moving on to spend my time more productively. I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavours. Shrug02 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your input and insight. As I told BeanieFan11 earlier, I promised to slow down on nominations, and in fact, I had decided that I wouldn't even entertain the idea of additional nominations until the ones already in the system work their way through.
    I can also promise to strive to be more thorough in researching these potential nominations and provide more detailed rationales in the future. I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sorry, Bgsu, I completely missed that you had committed to slowing down. I think that's a great idea that resolves the issue here. Just remember, when you get frustrated by other editors, do your best to stay polite – if you can't, simply step away from the keyboard for a moment. I don't want to see you get in trouble for one too many snarky comments. Toadspike 09:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • 20 nominations per day is 7300 per year. The limit should be more like 0. (And if it is decided to be 1 or something like that, Bgsu98 will have to demonstrate that he has searched for sources every time. I prefer 0, naturally.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    A limit of 0 is asinine, and I highly suggest you strike this comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah, agreed - really not helping move away from the comments above the MC is here because they don't like AFD. GiantSnowman 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  While I do not know whether @Bgsu98 should be restricted from AfD as I haven't been able to go into the weeds on this, I disagree with I doubt this merits any sanctions, but maybe a ratelimit on AfD noms (20 per day?) is called for. @Toadspike. No editor should be nominating 20 articles per day. That's unsustainable for AfD participants, clerks or closers. We do not have the editor volume to assess that many nominations from one nominator. Star Mississippi 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  20 per day is a lot, but given the numbers thrown around above (50 in 30 minutes) I figured it would be a massive improvement. But since Bgsu has committed to nominating far fewer articles with Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two! I suppose the whole discussion is moot. Toadspike 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's that easy. The question is who will check all the hundreds or thousands of his previous nominations. Definitely not me. (I've looked through several active ones, found some sources, commented here and there, and got very tired.)
  As I have commented below, when problems were found with Sander.v.Ginkel's articles, he was told to go through all his articles and check them. (Actually, there was a user who volunteered to help, but that user was revealed to be Sander.v.Ginkel himself, cause no one in their right mind would have volunteered to check 40000 articles. I, personally, don't want to be a slave and don't want to check Bgsu98's past nominations, especially knowing how little effort he put into creating them and that I would have to spend years looking for sources.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's a volunteer project. Someone may choose to, as you did initially, or no one will. But unless they're salted, there's nothing prohibiting restoration to drafts if WP:SIRS can be found. We can fix going forward but can't always fix what happened before even when there's a collaborative effort. Star Mississippi 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Of note. User JTtheOG is canvassing apparent like-minded editors to this discussion, here and here. Zaathras (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  They are not like-minded actually. In fact, both had previously expressed they disagreed with my initial assertions, which I had not yet provided evidence for. I was notifying them of examples being provided here of previously unsubstantiated aspersions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  "As per previous discussions..." I love hearing that JTtheOG is having discussions about me with other users, but has never once attempted to communicate directly to me. (Snide comments in AFD's don't count as broaching conversation.) Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • If even that's true, no none came. (No one of the whole two.) And Bgsu98 did the same by pinging his like-minded AfD colleague. (He pinged him immediately.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• As a fellow WP:FIGURE participant, and without having gone over the particular cases, I am normally a rather deletion-oriented editor but am an inclusionist for skating specifically as sources are not as online on this topic as usual, and often in foreign languages, so I am not usually in favor of deleting a skater's article unless we really do exhaust all possible sources of notability. I do request that @Bgsu98: convene a broader discussion over notability as I also do disagree with the current guidelines, but even without that a discussion is warranted. Even if a mass deletion is warranted, it should be handled in one mass AfD, not a gazillion separate ones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Mass AfDs routinely get shot down reflexively, on the (somewhat threadbare) grounds that they should all be reviewed on their individual merits, and not lumped in a group. Something of a Catch-22 there. In any event, the answer for an inadequately sourced article is not to jump through extraordinary hoops to find what isn't there. The answer is that the article cannot be sustained -- but can be recreated without prejudice should such sourcing surface down the road -- even when it's an article on a figure skater. Ravenswing 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Right, good point. But it still makes sense for cases where the rationale is mostly the same. Maybe not 100 articles in one but 5-10. This should help keep it at a more manageable level. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with you, but in recent years, a significant number of editors haven't: sufficient to sabotage most attempts to do so. Ravenswing 13:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• I came across this randomly in my watchlist.. can I recommend everyone take a step back and focus on the issue at hand? Currently, WP:BEFORE states the following: Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. So, I'd ask @Moscow Connection: to please consider whether their views on BEFORE are in line with what it actually says. I appreciate that MC states many of these nominated articles are for non-English speaking and in some cases non-Western world skaters, and so it may not be possible to find many of the potential sources in an English language Google search.But MC, can you identify any deletion nominations for which there were sources that could be found in any of the following: a normal Google search, or a Google Books search, or a Google News search, or a Google News archive search? If you can identify such, please provide the deletion discussion, and a link or other method of showing us how you came across the sources on one of those searches. If you can't, then it sounds like your argument is more for expanding WP:BEFORE to require non-English language searches for non-English subjects. I take no strong view on whether it would be a good idea - I think that BEFORE should certainly recommend more far reaching searches for subjects who may not be satisfied by a Google search.. but required? Not everyone knows how to use other search engines, and they may not even know what terms to use (or be able to type them easily). And that doesn't even begin to touch the big problem with Google - Google results (if you're logged in, at least), are significantly based on your search history, and if you use Google Chrome browser (on mobile or PC), or the Android OS, they are also based on your usage of those platforms (such as websites visited, apps used, etc). So it's entirely possible that MC searching Google may see a result on the first page or two that someone else searching Google would not have seen on the first couple pages at all.Regardless, that's an argument/discussion to be had on another page (likely WP:VPP). Since this all seems to be a misconstruing of BEFORE by MC, and assuming everyone involved tones down the rhetoric, I'd recommend this move towards a reminder to MC that BEFORE, as it stands now, does not require anything beyond a Google (and Google News and Google Books) to be searched, and until that changes, the mere fact sources exist on other search engines does not constitute a violation of BEFORE unless there is evidence they would've been found through those search means. And I recommend that MC (or anyone, really) starts a discussion at the appropriate place if they think changes to BEFORE are necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I read this and tried to search some names from AfD on Google Books. A search for Nicole Nönnig's name definitely returns something non-trivial: ("Nicole Nönnig kehrte allerdings nach kurzer Pause zurück . Mit Matthias Bleyer bildete sie ein Paar , das 2003 sogar internationale Wettbewerbe bestritt . Die Schlittschuhe haben Nicole und Matthias inzwischen jedoch an den Nagel ..."). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll leave this to others to discuss, but this is the type of "evidence" you would be expected to produce to show that the user did not comply with BEFORE. That said, one instance of mention in a book does not meet WP:GNG, so unless you can show that there are multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that would've been found on a BEFORE, then it still doesn't mean that the user did not do a valid BEFORE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Here's a link to the book: . (I've tried and tried, but I don't know how to add "bks" to the Google Books search URL.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    A search for "李宣潼" on Google News returned this article: and a couple more. The one I linked looks very solid, it is a full-fledged biography. (The AfD discussion is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Li Xuantong. As usual, the rationale is: Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    And one more article → about Li Xuantong and her partner Wang Xinkang (also nominated for deletion by Bgsu98). It's like a print magazine article + interview, looks "massive". --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Another example: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-jae.
    A simple Google News search for "김유재 2009" returns a lot. I didn't look too far, but I found two lengthy articles about her and her twin sister on the first page (, ) and voted "keep".
    (I would also note that there are already some AfD regulars present in that discussion. But no one has googled her name.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-seong. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    You do realize there’s a difference between an article about a person and the person themselves? You’re not saving anyone here. You are a volunteer Misplaced Pages editor, not a volunteer firefighter. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @HyperAccelerated: Did it sound strange or silly? Sure, I understand the difference. But people do say "article's notability" when it's actually "the notability of an article's subject". I thought that an article and its subject are interchangeable in colloquial wikispeech. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Personally, I would feel I had done a slipshod job if I made a nomination for an article with some passing-mention search results, and I did not address these in the nomination statement, or at the very least indicate that I had made the search. jp×g🗯️ 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I know the entire thing is a bit of a long read, but I would like to note that Bgsu98's tendency to make XFDs without any regard for GNG/BASIC - even for those where GNG/BASIC is met (1, 2, 3) - dates back to May 2022. In fact, last year I issued a warning on their talk page (which they then deleted) that this issue was creating more work for editors, but this is still continuing as of late. There seems to be an IDHT issue with WP:NOTBURO. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Alright, trying to defuse the situation more. @Bgsu98: It appears that MC has been able to provide at least two examples for which there are multiple examples of potentially significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. And another user has identified at least 3 other AfDs in which sources were quickly found by other users. Yes, some of them (such as MC's examples) were found by Google searching the non-Latin alphabet version of the subject's name, but nothing in BEFORE suggests that searching only the subject's Latin name is appropriate. And it appears that these sources are all found with a quick Google search of the subject's name in the non-Latin script. Can you explain why you did not find these sources, or why, if you did find these sources, you did not identify them at the AfD discussion and/or did not consider them sufficient for GNG? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of the limitations on nominating articles that User:Bgsu98 already stated they were willing to adopt? It's higher up in this discussion. Liz 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I spent a good 30-45 minutes reading this discussion before I made my first comment attempting to defuse this. I do not think that a voluntary restriction is going to be a good thing here, unless it is given the enforceability that a consensus here can give. I initially was concerned that EC was making this report with a poor understanding of BEFORE. But given that EC (and another editor) has/have now provided multiple examples of Google searches that show, at least at first glance, one or more sources that meet GNG for their related articles, I think there is ample evidence that Bgsu98 is violating BEFORE. I don't particularly care why they're violating BEFORE, but I would support waiting for their explanation regardless.If Bgsu98 is unable to provide any legitimate explanation for the at least 3 cases that have been identified now as having clear sources in the searches required by BEFORE, I would support a restriction on nominating articles for deletion in any way (PROD or AfD, or otherwise) since they cannot be trusted to follow BEFORE before they do so.All of that said, I think this should be moved to a subsection - starting with EC and Miraclepine's reports of specific cases. I stepped in as what you may call an inclusionist, thinking I'd be in support of sanctions immediately, but this is a complicated situation, and to be blunt, everything above my comment seems to have led nowhere. At the same time, I support giving Bgsu98 a chance to respond explaining why their BEFORE search was sufficient, before any sanctions are issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I've provided some 20 examples as well. JTtheOG (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say: "Not before Bgsu98 goes through all his previous nominations and his PRODs and searches for sources for them." He probably deleted (okay, "nominated") hundreds of pages, he did enough damage and now should work on fixing it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not too helpful right now, man. No one can be forced to do anything. JTtheOG (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't propose to force anyone. But I have just came across a Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request and remembered how he was told to go through all the articles he had created and check/fix them before creating more. We have a similar situation here, I think. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles that should not have been deleted have been kept by consensus at AfD. This is how AfD works. They are in the exact same state that they were before they were nominated, perhaps even better by WP: HEY. No “damage” has occurred. Additionally, if you think an article has been deleted when it shouldn’t, it is your responsibility to bring your concerns to DRV. This does not change just because you made a thread at ANI. You do not get to pick and choose which policies apply to whom. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Bgsu has already agreed to limit their nominations to a couple a day. This is a far stricter constraint than what could have probably been reached by consensus. What more do you want? For reasons I don’t understand, your response to this is “the limit should be more like 0” without any grounding in policy. As I see it, Bgsu is plainly negotiating in good faith, while your behavior is bordering on bullying. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@HyperAccelerated has hit the nail on the head. This discussion should have been tossed immediately or at least closed down well before now. The early responses were that this was a content dispute not appropriate for ANI then the OP kept going with rapid fire posts and a few editors who appear to have a pre-existing axe to grind with @Bgsu98 revved it up into what it has become. As a side note it will be very interesting to see how the outstanding AFDs are adjudicated and by whom. Shrug02 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions to Bgsu98. I did a spot-check of some of the more contentious AfDs and, honestly, the keep !votes did not provide a compelling argument to keep in any of those cases. As I mentioned to Moscow Connection above, for example, they provided six links to one of the subjects - and every single link was in the sports.ru domain which is not independent and does not establish notability for a Russian athlete. It's very unfortunate that so many editors here have expressed either distain for or fear of the AfD process, which is integral to the quality of this project and which I would heartily encourage more editors to participate in. And I can assure those people with misconceptions that many AfDs conclude with an article being kept or with no consensus - which is a de-facto keep. The sum of all human knowledge is a lofty goal. But one philosophical point I would ask extreme inclusionists to consider is that there is a difference between knowledge and data. AfD is a process whereby we distinguish between knowledge and data according to criteria - imperfect criteria surely but criteria - which we agreed to as participants in this project. We shouldn't be punishing a person for efficiently doing a hard job just because it's one that has a side-effect of upsetting people. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  In case it was not already clear I too Oppose sanctions against @Bgsu98. They should be given the chance to prove they will stick to their pledge to slow down on AFD nominations. Also sanctioning them will set a precedent for others who are unhappy with AFD proceeses and outcomes to seek similar sanctions against other nominators and could well have the effect of putting many people off participating in the process for fear of retribution when in fact it would be better if more people took part. Shrug02 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whereas I support some kind of restriction on the number of AFDs they can start per day. GiantSnowman 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I offered up self-imposed restrictions above, including the caveat that there would be no further skating nominations until the ones currently in the system work their way through. According to my log, my last nomination was January 7th. As more contentious AFD's can sometimes take up to a month to process, that should allow for sufficient time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  To be fair, your log is regularly cleared, including your most recent nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Once an AFD is settled, I remove it. What's the problem? The log shows active AFD's only. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• How about Bgsu98 just agrees to not nominate more than, I don't know, two articles per day (based on their comment I am also fine with any limitations that the community requests in terms of numbers of nominations. Twenty per day seems awfully high; I was thinking more like two!) and we end the discussion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11 I second this proposal. Shrug02 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  We should definitely end it. I'm not an admin but that seems more than fair. JTtheOG (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Two a day is fine by me. GiantSnowman 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I think there should be a requirement for him to show some sources he has found. (In every nomination. If there aren't any, then a link to a Google search query can suffice.)
    Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)
    Does he ever search the net? That's the question. Has it happened even once that he wanted to delete an article and then found a source for it, added the source and went away? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Wow. Mister "I would also like to note that I am polite" is again denigrating others' work, as if adding scores and formatting tables to meet Misplaced Pages's MOS is unimportant. "He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content." Yep, very polite. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    At this point, I'm seriously starting to think Moscow Connection needs topic banned from AfD in general, if not the entire subject matter of these articles. MC has demonstrated an inability to edit collaboratively without resorting to personal attacks and demands. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    I am regrettably willing to support either of those sanctions against MC at this point. They’ve been warned multiple times about the possibility of a WP: BOOMERANG, and those warnings were not heeded. While I really want to assume good faith here, their behavior resembles WP: HOUNDING, following Bgsu from nomination to nomination and casting a copious amount of aspersions on this ANI thread. Even if some of the Keep votes provide legitimate sources, the act of following a user across many discussions and refbombing them (in at least one case, as described in the discussion below) is not acceptable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  And, as I've said, one should also search in the skater's native language. And for Russian figure skaters, Google doesn't work, you need Yandex. (And Yandex is not good as a search engine, some effort is needed to find anything. The major sports websites have profiles for everyone, you need to find the needed profile and go from there. It sounds too complicated, but that's how it is.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Also, he doesn't appear to know how to use the Internet Archive. The Matthias Bleyer article had a good reference, I found it in the archive. His nomination (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthias Bleyer) doesn't mention the reference, like if it doesn't exist. Maybe he didn't even look at the references section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that he should be required to show some sources he has found and to explain why these sources do not suffice. (After all, if he nominates an article, then obviously he doesn't find the coverage sufficient.)
    There's always something. (Almost always.) But since he nominates mostly skaters who have finished their careers, the number of potential sources (news articles) found on the internet shouldn't be big. There are usually just a few. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    MC, you are rapidly digging a hole you will not be able to get out of. This incessant demands and aggressive comments are wearing thin, and if you do not stop you are likely to face WP:BOOMERANG sanctions yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    @HandThatFeeds: Okay, okay, sorry! By the way, I didn't even have this page on my watchlist and was just waiting for the outcome. (I came here yesterday, and there were no new replies. So I thought that was all, everyone was just waiting for an admin closure. I, personally, had said everything I wanted, I didn't even have anything to add.)
    P.S. I just came here now because Bgsu98 have edited some of my Russian figure skater articles just now. (I'm not attacking him, he hasn't ever nominated even one article of mine for AfD. Maybe because I'm trying to add a source or two to them.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think this would be reasonable. jp×g🗯️ 14:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I can see how Bgsu's nomination volume can be a problem, and support his voluntary limitations and promise to provide more thorough deletion rationales. At the same time, given the kinds of sources MC has produced as "evidence" of GNG at, e.g., Ievleva, I think his perception of our notability requirements is wildly out of line with the community's. As @Ravenswing pointed out in that AfD, MC basically repeatedly refdumped a bunch of interviews and couple-sentence mentions despite being informed of their ineligibility in contributing toward GNG, so if those are the kinds of sources they are bringing up now to demonstrate "nonexistent BEFORE searches" I am quite skeptical that the problem is as actionable as they claim. That, coupled with their broad disapproval (unawareness?) of our current NSPORT guidelines, makes me concerned about the notability of their own creations—are they also basing those articles on interviews and routine transactional blurbs? JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've started to wonder the same thing: that if MC is either utterly unaware of relevant notability standards or (as I suspect is the case) utterly defiant of them, are they another Lugnuts or Dolovis, and their article creations full of NN subjects? Ultimately, I don't give a damn whether MC (or anyone else) likes or approves of Misplaced Pages's standards, but they have to comply with them all the same.

  In any event, I oppose any sanction or limitation on Bgsu. I am not sure when people got the idea that filing bulk AfDs was against policy, but they are very greatly mistaken if they do think that. ANI is not the proper venue for a community discussion on changing that policy, and I recommend the Village Pump. Ravenswing 23:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I came across this article today: Gleb Lutfullin. This was the state of the article MC left before another user (and regular contributor to FS articles) added some of the tables. There is also this one: Vladislav Dikidzhi. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello. I've just noticed you edits to my articles and added some reliable sources.
  Sorry that I left the articles like that, but I'm not too interested in figure skating lately, I just saw the 2025 Russian Championships results and wanted to create some stubs for some new "figure skating stars". (Back in the days, other users, ones who know how to format all the tables, would come and do everything. Just a blink of an eye, and there's a lengthy article — competitive highlights, music, everything. But now I can't see anyone. Maybe they are upset by the changes to NSKATE and stopped working on Wiki.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have added simply terrific sources everywhere. (Everyone has a full-fledged biography on a big media site.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I simply searched "Глеб Лутфуллин 2004" on Google.com. and this came out on the first page. You posted here instead of simply googling.
  P.S. I know that this article is not my proudest moment. But I don't really edit figure skating articles lately and I have never been active much in this topic. Not on the English Misplaced Pages, anyway. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as 'your' articles, see WP:OWN. GiantSnowman 10:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also that source is very dubious. Look at their about page. Notice that they have a Guinness World Records Certificate image there? It's not got the official Guinness world records logo and there are errors in how the numbers are notated on it. Which suggests this newspaper has a fake Guinness world record cert on their about page. So, yeah, not very reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello! First of all, I must explain that I only came to that nomination because Berchanhimez asked me to find some examples of Bgsu98 not doing any WP:BEFORE research. So I went to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Skating and looked at the current nominations. I am very sorry if I "dumped" a lot of "bad" sources on that AfD page, but I simply wanted to show everything that I had found. And I believe that it is advisable that Bgsu98 does something like this in his future nominations. Like: "Look what I have found on Google. This, this. this. I believe it's not enough and the skater is not notable. Now let's discuss."
  P.S. At first, I wanted to find some of his old nominations of some really big names, but I didn't know how to find them. So that's what I did, I came to the current ones. (I looked at some figure skating championships articles, but there were no red links. It seems that, after an article gets deleted, he or someone else deletes all the links to it.)
  P.P.S. I should probably be advised to retire from this discussion. Cause I'm being attacked already. And it looks like some people are already advising me to go away. So I'm going away. I'm still hoping something good will come of this. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is good of you. You’ve provided your examples, and it’s now up to others to decide whether they are examples of violations of BEFORE or not. Thank you for refocusing your comments on specific examples rather than the back and forth that was going on.

  I tend to agree that BEFORE should not be a private thing. If someone does a BEFORE and finds nothing, stating such is good. But if they find borderline or a bunch of insignificant coverage, then providing at least examples of that in the nomination with a short explanation as to why they do not consider them valid goes to show they actually did a BEFORE.

  I don’t think a voluntary restriction on number of AfDs is enough to assuage the fact that the nomination statements are short and don’t address the sources that should be found during a BEFORE. But hopefully a limit of two per day will result in better nomination statements that address more borderline sources.

  At this point it doesn’t seem there’s any appetite for sanctions, and I think MC has been explained why many of the sources they have found don’t qualify for GNG. So maybe a closure with no action overall, and hopefully going forward less nominations at a time will result in more discussion in those nominations so that issues over why the sources found aren’t adequate can occur on each individual nomination. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is this another one of those things where between the people who spend dozens of hours a week on enforcing policies and making up new policies and arguing about how to modify policies look down our noses at the people who "merely" write/edit articles when they are confused that the rules they laboriously followed for years have been randomly changed without even their knowledge, let alone their consensus? jp×g🗯️ 14:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, it's more like a dispute between someone sending a bunch of articles to AfD because they lacked proper sourcing, and a fan of those articles throwing everything they can at the wall to try and "save" those articles, while smearing the person who sent them to AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Never mind what I said uptopic, JPxG: policies and guidelines change, from time to time. Always have, always will, and neither yours, mine nor anyone else's personal approval are a precondition of ratifying them. It is incumbent upon editors to stay abreast of such changes if they're engaged in ongoing article creation, but at any rate, they're not exempted from them. Leaving aside that the GNG and SIGCOV have been around for many years now, the changes in NSPORTS are a few years old themselves.

  In any event, you surely can't be advocating that the most productive way to handle being in this situation is to kick, scream, and rail against the injustice of it all, as opposed to "Gosh, sorry, I didn't know. I'll go read those guidelines now, and conform hereafter." Ravenswing 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  • @JPxG: That's a good observation! :-)
    But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE search. His actions are bot-like, and his AfD nominations usually receive one or two bot-like "delete" votes. We may as well just delete all the articles that are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It will be more fair than imitating an AfD process.
    P.S. I do appreciate the people who work on AfD and put their time in reviewing the nominations. I see that some of Bgsu98's nominations do end in a "keep" thanks to those hard-working people. But there are many more that would have been kept if a proper web search was done.
    P.S. I really can't participate in this ANI thread anymore, cause I have tried to comment on some AfD nominations and what I've got are just accusations of disrupting/sabotaging the process. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, that's enough. This is just more aspersions thrown at Bgsu98, even after all the attempts above to get Moscow to disengage. I think Moscow needs a topic ban from AfD, and a one-way IBAN with Bgsu9. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    The only thing I see about Bgsu98 in that comment is But what I wanted to do here on ANI is to stop just one particularly active editor who mass-nominates articles for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE search. His actions are bot-like. That's certainly a valid view of the nominations. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support TBAN and IBAN: My hand's kind of forced here. As I stated above, I really, really didn't want to do this. However, calling other people's behavior "bot-like" without evidence is a pretty serious aspersion, and MC has been warned many times to drop the stick at this point. This is the final straw for me. These read like veiled accusations, and while MC might come here and claim that I'm misunderstanding them, I just can't give the benefit of the doubt after witnessing this consistent pattern of misbehavior. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    • First, you invite me to AfD (that I do not normally visit), then, when I do drop by, you don't like my comments and want to make me banned from there. That's unpolite, to say the least. And what IBAN, fgs? I swear I didn't even know who this Bgsu98 user was until a few days ago.
      My hand's kind of forced here. — That's just strange. You are not an admin. Do you have some anger issues? I think it is you and HyperAccelerated who need a ban from ANI and an IBAN from interacting with me because I have never seen you in my life and you are attacking me all of a sudden.
      P.S. I hope this will be my last comment here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Do you have some anger issues? And now you're casting aspersions, which is absolutely not a good look on top of everything else here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    @The Bushranger: I am very, very sorry. I didn't know that could be seen as "aspersions" that weren't allowed. They have also casted "aspersions" saying that I was trying to harrass Bgsu98 and sabotage the AfD process. When in fact, I just posted to ANI and never talked to Bgsu98 elsewhere. So I just wanted to reply to them in a similar manner. That was stupid of me.
    As for my "disruption" at AfD, I simply searched for sources and showed everything I have found. (That's how I usually search for sources, sorry. This time I didn't even try to go through all the 100 pages of Google results.)
    JPxG said that this was "one of those things" between people who enforce policies and the people who write articles. But it looks like some people who are attacking me are wikignomes who make minor edits. And when they saw one billion sources I had dumped at one AfD, they didn't understand.
    P.S. I hope I didn't say anything wrong again. I sincerely promise that I will never return to this discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience I have caused. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    I also don't think ignorance is an acceptable excuse for these kinds of comments at this point. As Ravenswing pointed out above (comment), you've been here for fifteen years. You should be more than familiar with the guidelines for civility by now. I also issued a warning that your behavior was becoming sanction-worthy here, and Hand also issued a warning here. AfD requires users to resolve disagreements over whether to keep or discuss articles in a civil manner. Given MC's aspersion that I have "anger issues" and the refbombing at this AfD of Bgsu's, I have serious doubts as to whether they can be an effective participant in AfDs. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I really, really didn't want to do this. However, calling other people's behavior "bot-like" without evidence is a pretty serious aspersion – HyperAccelerated: would you say that mass nominating fifty different articles for deletion in half as many minutes with the exact same one-sentence rationale is not bot-like? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

      Not entirely. I think it can be done by hand in that span of time, albeit it's a bit tedious. The use of "bot-like" in this context is questionable at best and objectionable at worst. But, regardless of whether you agree with my interpretation of this remark, I'm more concerned about a broader pattern of misbehavior coming from MC. We should not mistake the forest for the trees. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    • @Liz: Can this be stopped, please? I've said everything I wanted to say and went away from this discussion, but HandThatFeeds and HyperAccelerated are still attacking me and are writing something strange in bold font. It looks like they have highjacked this discussion and are leading it to some very unusual outcome.
      P.S. I've actually found out how I "first met" Bgsu98 and I've posted my findings here on ANI, but then I deleted that post: . (I'm sorry, but Bgsu98's name looked to me like something from a random character generator. And I don't remember every sequence of characters I see on the internet. :-)) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    • On ANI, when things aren't going your way, you don't get to say "please stop the discussion". Everyone's conduct is open to discussion here - including yours, and are writing something strange in bold font, when the only "bold font" used by (one of) them is the (very obvous) !vote to topic-ban you, is concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN Probably being a bit too zealous here on the whole civility thing, so closing this before I feed the fire any more. (WP:TROUT me, I've become the very editor I swore to fight) Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

WP:BOOMERANG TBAN for Moscow Connection

Uninvolved editor here. I don't know much about WP:NSKATE technicalities that brought this issue here. What I do know is that Moscow Connection conduct on here is clearly over the line, and suggests an inability to follow WP:NPA that suggests an inability to participate at AfD and a poor understanding of our deletion policy. Hence, I propose a topic ban from AfD. A word of personal advice for the user in question. If you have discovered new sources for an article previously deleted, first ask for an article to be restored to your user page, then improve the article, and then submit it through AfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would be for a grand total of three "incorrect" AFD !votes. That's it. Three. (1 / 2 / 3). Topic-banning an editor because there were three AFDs where they provided sources that were insufficient, whereas we have an editor at this discussion who was nominating potentially notable articles (and many notable articles) en masse without any search whatsoever, which included 50 AFDs in half as many minutes, is utterly ludicrous. This discussion should have been closed a long time ago with no action, or, if anything, a restriction on Bgsu98. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. While they have at times been obtuse in this ANI thread, they do not seem to have done any actual harm outside of it. I am opposed to the existence of a "thunderdome" area where people get summoned to do combat, yelled at by a dozen people for several days, and then banned if they happen to get mad during this.

jp×g🗯️ 21:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even I think this is unnecessary at this point. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The user is highly passionate about the subject. That’s great - and to be quite blunt, we should be encouraging that. The user identified a problematic behavior (rapid AfD nominations that did not appear, at first, to be BEFOREd properly). From what I’ve seen, those issues have been resolved - both by the user reported agreeing to slow down on their nominations and explain them better, as well as by the MC realizing that many of the coverages they’ve found are borderline at best for determining notability.

This thread got out of hand because people didn’t focus on the issue at hand. And I broadly agree with jpxg above - when rather than trying to refocus the thread people just pile on someone who made a good faith report, of course they’ll get a bit mad and make some mistakes that are borderline NPA/civility violations. But ask yourself this - is recommending a BOOMERANG for a problem that’s resolved not inflaming the situation more? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose As @BeanieFan11 said this discussion should have been closed a long time ago. @Moscow Connection has been very uncivil at times on this thread and others, particularly in their language and questioning of other editors' motives and abilities, but hopefully they will learn from what has been said during this discussion and will not repeat this behaviour. I was in favour of giving @Bgsu98 a chance and I do not want to be hypocritical by not doing so with MC too.

Shrug02 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

KirillMarasin promoting medical treatments and "conversion therapy"

CBANNED KirillMarasin has been banned by the Misplaced Pages community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

KirillMarasin (talk · contribs)

I think we have two related problems with KirillMarasin. First up, he promotes and seeks to legitimise the pseudo-medical practice of "conversion therapy" (diff1, diff2, diff3 Yes, that really is a medical claim being sourced to Reddit!) and secondly he adds medical claims to other articles which are either unreferenced or which are improperly referenced to sites selling supplements (diff5, diff6, diff7 and diff8). Attempts by multiple editors to warn him have been unavailing and I read this as both a personal attack and a highly offensive suggestion that I practice "conversion therapy" on myself. Beyond that, this is a clear and sustained case of WP:POV and WP:IDHT. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I promoted anything though. I didn't say it was good or bad, I was trying to be neutral. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if my edits are not high-quality, the article on conversion therapy has a lot of gaslighting, saying time and time again there are no treatments, when the opposite is true. KirillMarasin (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Not according to science baaed RS which is all that matters from Misplaced Pages's PoV Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

What is RS? KirillMarasin (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Good question! You were supposed to know that in order to edit Misplaced Pages. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's short for "Reliable Sources". You can learn about it at WP:RS @KirillMarasin. Nakonana (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I've already read it. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Not only are your edits not of high-quality, at least two of your sources are garbage, and you're edit warring at that article as well. You need to step away from that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would you even consider 4Chan to be a legitimate source for anything, let alone a science/medicine-based topic? That, in of itself, is a major issue. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Just looking at the three conversion therapy edits mentioned by DanielRigal, this one makes a medical claim without citing any sources at all and this one cites reddit and 4chan for medical claims. Finally, this one cites a paper in the Journal of Neurosurgery for the claim that some methods of conversion therapy were working. The paper in question in fact says that while Heath claimed that the patient had a full recovery and engaged exclusively in heterosexual activities, other sources argued that the patient continued to have homosexual relationships. Any of these diffs on their own would be totally unacceptable. Additionally, a glance at Special:History/Conversion therapy shows that KirillMarasin not only added these claims once, but reinstated them after their removal was adequately explained. e.g. here they add the "some methods of conversion therapy were working" claim, here the addition is reverted with the edit summary explaining that the source does not support the addition, here KirillMarasin reinserts the text with the edit summary It doesn't need deleting, I'll try to edit it to better reflect the article. When somebody reverts an edit because it contradicts the cited source, you need to fix that error before reinstating it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Would a WP:TOPICBAN on WP:GENSEX prevent further inappropriate editing? Note this is a question, I'm not familiar with WP:GENSEX and it may very well not have any bearing or may be the wrong approach here. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think there's a CIR issue as well. The slipping of sources from 4chan into a contentious topic seems either like overt trolling or a serious lack of understanding of sources.King Lobclaw (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I tested the treatments on myself before writing. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Anecdotal evidence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Only scientific evidence qualifies as a reliable source that can be quoted. Nakonana (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Original research is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd still like to WP:AGF, even though I'm beginning to have my doubts. I think this is a CIR issue first and foremost, with a mixture of POV-pushing and lack of understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Since they are here, and reading this page, and haven't edited since they started following this conversation, I think @KirillMarasin: should read those policies first, before they attempt to edit again. If they continue with their current editing pattern, though, a WP:TOPICBAN would be entirely appropriate. — The Anome (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  The editor has been directed to WP:MEDRS in the past, before the most recent spate of unsourced or promotionally-sourced edits, so it does not seem to have had any positive effect. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not all of the problem edits have been WP:GENSEX; the ones listed by the OP aa diffs 5 through 8 are on sexual health matters not under that GENSEX guideline. A more general medical topic ban, widely construed, may be more appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NQP, WP:CIR. I can assume good faith, as this editor presumably grew up in a culture where widespread homophobia is normalized (referring, of course, to 4chan), but these edits are repulsive. I would expect that an editor of 15 years would be aware of policies like WP:RS, let alone WP:FRINGE. Editors who like to tweak numbers and facts without citations can wreak a lot more disruption than just inserting insane nonsense on controversial articles, which is easily spotted and reversed. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I tested the treatments on myself before writing. And why do you use strong language on my edits instead of trying to stay neutral? KirillMarasin (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow. It's understandable that a newbie might believe that such obvious original research might be acceptable, but for someone with KM's tenure here to present "I tested the treatments on myself" as a justification for adding something to any article, let alone one subject to WP:MEDRS, is extremely concerning. CodeTalker (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

KirillMarasin (talk · contribs) has been here for more than a decade. It's hard to believe that suddenly, he doesn't know that 4Chan isn't a usable source - and in a topic like this, too. Signs are pointing to NOTHERE. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for posting low-quality content here. I will adhere to the rules in the future. KirillMarasin (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I find that impossible to believe, given your tenure here and apparent refusal to follow rules you clearly should know. At this point I can only assume you are trolling. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block for WP:CIR is an appropriate remedy. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Having looked through this, all I can say is wow. Even leaving aside the obvious problems already listed above, and responding to concerns with Have you tried this on yourself before making a comment? If not, then I don't have time to argue with you., there's the odd fact that the editor was away for a time and then came back here to do this, inserting what are or are indistinguishable from promotional links, and generally taking a hard turn from most previous editing, making me wonder if the account is WP:COMPROMISED. Suggesting an indefinite block because either it's that or it's very elaborate trolling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  No technical indication the account is compromised, but that doesn't conclusively prove it isn't. --Yamla (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  While they've been relatively inactive for years, the only year since first becoming active that they have made no edits at all is 2022. They have been making psychiatry-related edits since at least 2018 (see e.g. this addition of a treatment claim based on their admittedly original research) and their most recent music edit (previously their primary editing interest) was in 2023. I guess it could be a compromised account but I think it's probably not Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked KirillMarasin for persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. By "poorly sourced", I mean shockingly bad sources. This editor's history is strange. The editor was moderately active in the video game topic area 12 to 14 years ago and then effectively disappeared. After their return in December, their sole focus has been spreading nonsense about sexuality and "conversion therapy". At this point, they are not competent to build the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've seen people offer established accounts for sale, maybe that's what happened here? Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I find it more likely this is someone who fell into the "redpill" community and decided to come back to Misplaced Pages to WP:RGW. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  They have been somewhat active on ruwiki and actually got a warning over homophobia on their talk page in July 2023. See: ru:Обсуждение участника:KirillMarasin#Недопустимость гомофобии. Nakonana (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I feel it unlikely anyone paid for this account, why would someone pay for an account then say such clueless stuff? There's also the fact the 2018 stuff seem similar enough. I don't know if the Russian editing could be a factor in why they're so confused. Are sourcing standards weaker or is the OR not outright forbidden on the Russian wikipedia? I'd hope no wikipedia allows Reddit let alone 4chan, the same with OR, for medical information but I could imagine some allowing at least Reddit along with some forms of OR for gaming related stuff. (I mean we don't consider simple plot summaries from OR.) In any case, I'm fairly sure this isn't the first editor we've had who was sort of okay while editing some stuff but who's editing fell apart when it was something they particularly cared about. Nil Einne (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  The contribution that got him the warning on ruwiki was not about adding content, but about removing content (regarding child adoption by gay couples) accompanied by a discriminatory comment towards LGBTQ+ people in the edit summary (translation of the comment: "removing disgusting content").

  Generally speaking, they only have 196 edits on ruwiki versus 3,351 on enwiki, so I wouldn't expect that differences in sourcing standards on ruwiki could have any notable effect on his editing on enwiki.

  I only brought up ruwiki to point out that he has been active there, while he seemed to have "disappeared" on enwiki. Meaning, the account might not be compromised, i.e. it's not an account that suddenly returned from wiki-retirement, but an account that probably was consistently active throughout the years, even if at low activity level, and the LGBTQ+ issue also doesn't seem to be an out-of-character new development. Nakonana (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Community ban for KirillMarasin

COMMUNITY BANNED By the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, KirillMarasin is banned from Misplaced Pages. The ban may be appealed no sooner than six months from this date. If the ban is successfully appealed, a topic ban on GENSEX and sexual health matters, broadly construed, shall remain in force. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

For seeming WP:CIR and WP:PROMO issues, I proposed that KirillMarasin be community banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Also support a GENSEX TBAN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I propose a community ban on all editing, appealable no sooner than six months from now. I also propose a WP:TOPICBAN on WP:GENSEX and on sexual health matters, broadly construed. That topic ban would be appealable no sooner than six months and 500 constructive article edits after the community ban was lifted. Comment: There are significant problems with this user's editing. These are deeply concerning given the length of time this account has been active. Claiming 4chan is a reasonable source to use, claiming personal experience is a reasonable source, etc. Before any unban, I'd expect to see a convincing argument from KirillMarasin that they understand what was wrong with their edits and with the sourcing of their edits. Frankly, this doesn't cover all the bases. There are other serious concerns here. But... it would be a start. --Yamla (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as per Hemiauchenia's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom, using Reddit and 4chan as sources in this topic area is totally unacceptable, and then claiming they've tried it is unbelievable, honestly, I think we're being trolled here. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Even now, I see no indication that he understands what the problems really are. I'm not sure about the question of trolling. It certainly had crossed my mind but, given that he appears to be Belarusian, it might be that he is merely be reproducing lies taught to him as facts in school. If so, I feel at least some sympathy for him but that doesn't change the outcome here. He has had enough warnings. You can't be citing Reddit and 4chan, especially for medical or medical adjacent subjects, and expect to remain an editor in good standing. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Even in Belarus I have a hard time believing anyone thinks tapeworms give you homosexuality which can then be cured by eating garlic. He’s either deep in the redpill conspiracy rabbit hole (and falling for a /pol/ shitpost) or a troll himself. Dronebogus (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note I have indefinitely blocked this editor. The community ban discussion should proceed. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support a community ban from en.wp with a requirement of a GENSEX tban if subsequently lifted. This is either incompetence, trolling or both. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose but endorse the block. At this point, the only difference between a community ban and the current block is how the editor can appeal. A block would be reviewed by an uninvolved admin, while a ban would be reviewed by the community. I support bans when I feel that the appeal shouldn't be reviewed by a single admin, but this case is pretty garden-variety and I see no need to involve the community in a review of any appeals. See the table at WP:BANBLOCKDIFF — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, this case is not "pretty garden-variety", it is absolutely appalling that an editor is using social media platforms as sources in this topic area, and dubiously claiming they have tried it on themselves. I am uncomfortable with a single admin reviewing any appeal, the community should have a say in this matter. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it is appalling. By "garden-variety", I meant the issue is simple to analyze and an unblock review would have clear criteria to be successful. I think of community bans when I see problem editors who admins have failed to block for some reason, or editors who have caused widespread disruption affecting many users and pages. On the other hand, if you are concerned about having a single admin review the appeal, then a community ban is quite appropriate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Behavior is completely beyond the pail of acceptability. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support I sort of agree with rsjaffe that this seems simple enough that I'm not afraid of leaving it for an admin to handle the unblock. I mean when an editor twice tells us they tested something on themselves, it's a clear sign the editor's understanding of even the basics of how we create Misplaced Pages even after a long time and 3000+ are so poor it's going to take a for them to get back. And that's being very generous and assuming they just didn't recognise the RS acronym rather than not even being aware of the term 'reliable source'. Which even being that generous they still didn't understand the concept putting aside OR given 4chan etc. However unlike rsjaffe I don't see a harm in a cban and given that this discussion was started before the indef, I feel it's fine to continue it as noted by the admin. Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support (and I endorse Culln328's block as an administrator). To have returned after many years of absence solely to push conversion therapy pseudoscience using the least reliable sourcing imaginable clearly violates so many policies and guidelines that unblocking should require the confidence of the community. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN (and endorse indef) - promotion of fringe ideas and POVpushing like this has no place on wikipedia. The WP:CIR issues are the cherry on top. — Shibbolethink 06:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Having read more of the discussion in the previous section, I agree, reluctantly, that a CBAN is the only way forward here. — The Anome (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Promoting conversion therapy, along with the RU wiki issues, tells me this person needs to be kept away from our community until they've had a substantial amount of growth. This isn't something any admin should be able to revoke on their own, the community needs to be involved before this person comes back. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Support homophobia (implicit here, made explicit on ruwiki) and promotion of homophobic fringe nonsense. Use of 4chan, WP:OR and Reddit as sources shows severe WP:CIR issues as well if it’s not outright trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

History of disruptive COI editing

I didn't wanted to go through this, but I'm done being patient. There appears to be a long history of disruptive COI editing by Armandogoa on his father's article Carlos Alvares Ferreira. He usually edits this page after every few months or so, and seems to add unreferenced content as per his latest edit done on the page here . I had many of his edits reverted myself.

I also did place a COI warning on his talk page over a year ago . But he seems to not understand it this way. His father is an active politician, and considering our WP:BLP policies, I think this editor should be blocked to prevent any other controversial or peacock material added in the future. Rejoy(talk) 07:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, User:Rejoy2003,

You'd probably get more of a response if you provided diffs of edits of this "long history of disruptive COI editing" you are concerned about. I don't see the one edit you listed as egregious, anyone could proably find a source for a politician's promotion since they are public figures. It doesn't seem "controversial" or "peacock" to me. Liz 05:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, we both know that per WP:COI we shouldn't edit articles we have conflict of interest. Be it in good or bad faith, I believe generally editors should avoid editing. They should leave that to third party editors like us. He could had make a request to have any material added to his father's article.

As far as his editing history goes, he first started editing in 2022 see here . If you see his edits thereafter all of them are unsourced and most likely come under WP:OR. He then edited again in 2023 see , by this time he was already warned. But he still tries to ignore the warning and continues with his editing. His last edit was in 2024 .

I wouldn't had a problem if he did this additions to some other article other than his father's. Knowing the COI rules, I think he should be blocked. We never know when his editing behaviour might be a much problem for us in the near future. Especially considering the article's low value for editorial oversight. Rejoy(talk) 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that's enough repeat violations that Armandogoa should be pblocked from the article, and only allowed to suggest edits on the Talk page. It's not enough for a site block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that this account has made only 39 edits over a period of more than 4 years, and the most recent one was nearly 3 months before this report was filed unless there are deleted edits I'm not privy to. COI or not (and I agree with the initial poster that there's a COI), I think WP:BITE is worth keeping in mind here. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Rescinding. 39 edits isn't a lot, but 4 years is a long time. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

@Jasper Deng: has been continually bludgeoning a conversation about a page rename, casting unsupported aspersions, acting uncivilly, and biting newcomers (me).

Teahouse

During a lively discussion about a page rename, it occurred to me that I might be able to improve this encyclopedia by starting a conversations that could POTENTIALLY lead to future guidance or policy regarding how to name natural disaster articles. So I went to the teahouse to ask how I can start a conversation about that.

They followed me to the teahouse and:

• Bludgeoned me
• casted aspersions it is frowned upon to post about an ongoing decision making discussion elsewhere (unless it is to raise serious misconduct concerns) as it could be considered WP:CANVASSING, particularly when the incipient consensus is leaning against your position You'll note that my post in the teahouse was asking how to start a conversation about potential future policy improvements, not at all about the ongoing conversation. And even if it were, the practice is quite common on noticeboards, why would it be any different in the teahouse such that it would be WP:CANVASSING?

In the process they said Don't overthink this to me.

To which I replied Please do not patronize me by suggesting I am overthinking this, and please don't WP:BLUDGEON me by responding to every comment I've made to someone else regarding this.

• They then willfully disrespected me by again saying in part I'm afraid you are overthinking it
• tried to intimidate me because of their number of edits and made continued, unsupported, exaggerated claims of misconduct against me Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".

Talk page

Back on the talk page, they:

• Once again bludgeoned the process by replying to my vote
• Accused me of moving the goalposts
• Bludgeoned another editor as well
• Collapsed their bludgeoning with a close note that they agree (with themself?) that their comments were more than necessary after taking a second look

Just recently I noticed they continued to reply to others' votes that went against their POV

So I warned them to stop bludgeoning on their talk page

Rather than replying, they deleted it from their talk page. In the edit note, they:

• Again tried to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor As someone who is still rather inexperienced you should not be attempting to warn experienced editors like me.

• Cast aspersions and threatened me with a block Your comment here is grossly uncivil and if you ever comment like this again you will be the one considered for a block.

They then left a message on my talk page:

• Casting aspersions and threatening me with a block again Posting that WP:SHOUTING on my talk page is grossly uncivil and unwarranted and will get you blocked the next time you do that.
• And again attempted to intimidate me because of their status as an experienced editor But you are in absolutely no position to attempt to enjoin me from further participation in that process. You do not understand the policies and guidelines you're trying to warn me about; don't pretend that you do (especially with respect to WP:OWN).
• And again, cast more unsupported aspersions in an uncivil manner Coming to my talk page unprompted and without the other user's involvement is crossing the line to you harassing me. Cut it out.

This has been an upsetting experience for me. Perhaps I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia.Delectopierre (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit to add: it has been brought to my attention that posting on this board comes with the expectation that I am seeking a ban/punishment. I am not. I am simply seeking an end tothe behavior I described below.

I posted here because the graphic at the guide to dispute resolution suggests that conduct policy violations can only be posted here, or arbitration (unless it is edit warring). Further the WP:DRN states it is for content disputes only.

Thank you, and my apologies for any confusion my venue selection has caused. Delectopierre (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

After leaving making this post, I noticed @Jasper Deng also left a comment about me, casting even more aspersions in a thread I started on @Cullen328's talk page that had absolutely nothing to do with @Jasper Deng:

This user needs mentorship as they are flying too close to the sun. The comment I just removed from my talk page and the one I left them at User talk:Delectopierre#Stop suggests that I am not the most effective one to convey that to them. My participation in the RM isn't that unusual and I consider their comments highly condescending and, now, aggressive to the point that I will want to see them blocked if they do it again. Delectopierre (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Both users are right: Jasper Deng when they say, "I am not the most effective one to convey that to them", and Delectopierre when saying, "Perhaps I am too sensitive". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger Can you help me understand what it is that I need conveyed to me?

I did not chose to be this sensitive. Frankly it is because of things that happened to me as a child.

It is not an enjoyable way to live my life, and I am actively working to improve my mental health on a daily basis. That said, it is who I am right now. I know this about myself, which is why when this all began I said to myself What can I work on related to this article, where I won't have to interact with Jasper? That's when they followed me to the teahouse. Delectopierre (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

My impression, based on this brouhaha: you are easily offended, but at the same time keen to tell off others. Bad combination. While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page, but at the same time tacks unrelated complaints about you onto conversations not involving him. Bad combination. From the unassailable heights of my own moral perfection, I suggest you both simmer down and get back to editing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

get back to editing

I attempted to do so, by no longer focusing my efforts the article, but rather discussion of future policy/guidance. Jasper followed me there and repeated language that I specifically asked them not to, and accused me of canvassing, among other things.

And to be clear, as I stated above, I am not the only editor who repeatedly asked Jasper to stop bludgeoning So you continue. Very collaborative of you. "Vote my vote, or be harassed." Delectopierre (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Just want to add one more thing: While Jasper Deng dislikes being harrangued on his talk page is posting one warning on a talk page haranguing? Whether Jasper's behavior is a policy violation or not, in good faith I believe it to be, so I posted on his talk page. I'm genuinely asking: I thought that's what I'm supposed to do to try to resolve disputes, but is your guidance that it's haranguing to do so? Delectopierre (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

These kinds of interactions are not uncommon here (this is the internet, after all) and I suggest you two adopt a voluntary IBan policy and give each other a wide berth. I wouldn't be surprised if every editor on this project has other editors that get under their skin and most of us handle it by choosing not to interact with them. Yes, a therapist would advise against pure avoidance but this project functions, in great part, because our editors avoid others who get on their last nerve. I know that this isn't the slap down punishment that you seem to be seeking but if every editor quit because another editor cast aspersions, we wouldn't have any editors left. Civility is a goal to aspire to but it's not always embodied on this project.

I have invited Jasper Deng to participate here and I'm hoping we can get to the point where you two can simply disengage with each other. Liz 19:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you for your reply. I am not seeking a slap down, or punishment. I would like the behaviors to stop.

could you clarify what you mean that civility is a goal to aspire to? my reading of the policies is that civilly is a policy, not a goal. If that’s not the case, then I’ll need to reevaluate my participation. Delectopierre (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I am involved here as a participant in the naming discussion. Also this disagreement among editors has spilled over to my talk page. Civility is not always a black or white matter and there are many shades of gray, as reading all of WP:Civility shows. A relevant passage is Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences, some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. I think that dynamic is at play here between these two editors. The disagreements concern the current wildfire catastrophe in the Los Angeles area and it is obvious that the emotions of many Californians and wildfire editors are raw, myself included. Some of us are better at masking that than others. I think that it would be wise for these two editors to steer clear of each other, and for all editors working on this literally hot topic area to check themselves and to avoid bludgeoning, being pedantic and being snide with one another. In my view, formal complaints alleging incivility are best limited to instances when the incivility is obvious to uninvolved editors. Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. A few things:

• In my view, formal complaints alleging incivility

• I'm unsure of how else to get the behavior to stop, and I am unsure of what rises to the level of a post here or not. Are there guidelines/examples I can look at?

This is the second time now that I have experienced -- what to me appeared to be a black and white policy violation -- only to be told essentially 'oh that doesn't rise to the level.' I think I'm intelligent enough to understand policies, and it is only behavioral policy that I have experienced to have some secret code that I can't seem understand. Other policy seems to be applied directly by the letter of the policy. I don't know what else to do. Like I said, I know I am a sensitive person, but shouldn't there be a place on wikipedia for sensitive people too? It's helpful for me to know what the rules are, and I thought I did.

• limited to instances when the incivility is obvious to uninvolved editors

• Just to give you insight into my thought process: I first posted in teahouse about a policy conversation so that I could edit without interacting with Jasper. I tried to put myself in an area where I wouldn't need to interact with them. They followed me there.
• Next, when an experienced editor appeared to agree with me that Jasper was bludgeoning, I felt that was a policy violation. But I did not make a post and decided to let it go, so long as the debate continued to evolve unimpeded.

I saw what appeared to be bludgeoning/tendentious editing again, after both an experienced editor and I told Jasper to cut it out on the talk page and in the teahouse. I see now that it wasn't great judgement of mine to re-invovle myself by warning Jasper, and I will try to think better about that in the future -- and not edit so late at night when I'm tired.

• However it was only after that experienced editor also told them to cut it out, AND I saw what -- to me -- appeared to be bludgeoning/tendentious editing, that I tried to warn them on their talk page. They of course didn't reply on their talk page, but deleted my post, and posted on my talk page instead saying that it was improper of me to post on their talk page. I saw that as Jasper trying to intimidate me on my own talk page. Essentially saying 'you don't have rights' or 'the policies don't apply to me, newb.' But isn't the process that when an editor is having difficulty with someone, they are meant to post on that editors talk page to discuss it? By deleting my post and saying they will get me banned if I post on their talk page again, that because I'm new I don't have to right to do so, I felt they were trying to intimidate me, and I experienced that as cyberbullying. (To be clear: I am not making an objective judgement, nor am I pointing to a WP Policy, as to my knowledge, there is no policy that specifically discusses cyberbullying. Just stating my experience.)

But it was my experience, it seemed to be against policy, and I wanted the behavior to stop.

• I am unsure of how else to get this type of behavior to stop, especially after they followed me to the teahouse and I told them stop, but they said essentially 'nah I'm gonna keep doing it.'

Where can I go to discuss wildfires that they won't follow me? This is an important topic to me, along with millions of others. I believe you live in CA - I do too.

All that said, at any point Jasper could also have stopped. And apologized. But that is not what occurred.

• Lastly I'll say this: The disagreements concern the current wildfire catastrophe

• Yes, that is how it started. But I do not have concerns about rules being applied incorrectly when it comes to content. I see a lively discussion. I may not agree with the majority there - that's fine! Good, even. But that doesn't mean I'm okay with other editors controlling the process, nor acting uncivilly towards me.

• My apologies for the verbosity. I think it would be helpful, if anyone experienced is willing, to let me know where in my thought process I went astray in addition to the place I already pointed out that I could have exercised better judgement. It would also be helpful if anyone experienced could point me to a way to get this type of behavior to stop, as well as somewhere I can see what type of behavior violates policy and and should be posted here, and what type of behavior does not.

Delectopierre (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A suggestion, which I hope is taken as well-intentioned and constructive: if your posts on other fora are as long-winded as the above that may frustrate other editors. Suggest aiming for greater conciseness. Simonm223 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I understand and mentioned that myself. I am confused about where I can get help stopping upsetting behavior, and because of the reception I got, am unsure of what to do other than offer my thought process so that I can better understand what I can do better in the future. Delectopierre (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the second time now that I have experienced -- what to me appeared to be a black and white policy violation -- only to be told essentially 'oh that doesn't rise to the level

As the person who was brought here less than two weeks ago for what was the first instance, I may not be the best person to reply but I wanted to give advice on this Like I said, I know I am a sensitive person, but shouldn't there be a place on wikipedia for sensitive people too?

It is easy to get emotionally involved in articles and get down the rabbit hole of being too wrapped up in policies. I understand your stance in this instance and understand Jaspers as well, but sometimes it is easier just to disengage with editors rather than being 'right' or getting the last word. And it is also sometimes advisable to take a WP:wikibreak if you feel you are too involved or it is affecting your mental health (It is one of the templates on that page, as is feeling discouraged). Literally no one would fault you for that. Best of luck to you.

Awshort (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

tl;dr: my experience with Jasper is part of a clear pattern of behavior.

As I mentioned, I posted here because I wanted the behavior to stop, so I do not do any sort of deep dive on Jasper's page or behavior. However I saw this comment by @EF5, and I wanted to look at it. It wasn't in the archive on Jasper's talk page (or at least I couldn't find it there, not sure if I searched correctly). So I took a look at his talk page history. It quickly became clear that some of the things I experienced from Jasper are clearly part of a larger pattern of behavior. I didn't want to spend too long on this, so there may be more behavior there, and to be clear, this is only from looking at the edit history on his talk page:

1. He has (judging by other's comments on Jaspers talk page) a pattern of behavior that upsets others. After this occurs, other editors will leave a message on his talk page, and he will not only not engage in a conversation with them, he will remove the comment (rather than allowing it to get archived) with either an antagonistic or very generic edit summary.

2. Jasper has a pattern -- again based on his comments -- of taking personal offense to people he has disagreements with leaving messages on his talk page to try to discuss the issue. In some instances, it appears as though this has been followed by immediate messages on their talk pages, indicating (to me) that it is only his talk page where issues cannot be discussed.

3. In these instances, some of Jasper's edit summaries have the effect of silencing other wikipedians who, in good faith, attempted to discuss issues with him on his talk page. As we all know, one cannot respond to an edit summary in the same venue, leading the editor with two options:

a. Take the time to compile their original comments, diffs, Jasper's edit summaries, etc. and finding a new venue for the discussion, where Jasper may or may not participate.

b. Make a new post on Jasper's talk page, despite him telling them not to, which gives Jasper ammunition tat the other editor did something wrong.

4. Whether on purpose, or as an unintended consequence of this behavior, this has created an appearance -- on the surface -- that Jasper doesn't cause any problems with other editors on wikipedia. Based on the following quotes, and from my experience, this is not the case.

1. @Kingsif

Gaslighting

I recommend not making comments telling someone "no, you just didn't read my comment properly" in a condescending fashion

And, by the way, stop accusing now three users of edit-warring when you are the only one making hasty reverts diff

2. @Elijahandskip

I request that you link that discussion, especially since you are bashing me over the head with it and yet you have failed to actually provide a link to this discussion diff

Jasper's edit summary in removing that comment Request for discussion: proof was provided at AN3, please keep discussion centralized. You really ought to look at your *own* conduct before you cast aspersions.

but I do not appreciate being called a disruptive editor, ESPECIALLY not in a closing message meant to be neutrally worded link

But, this feels like a biased closure occurred, and after all the recent heat at AN/I about neutrally worded things (and no canvassing), this might warrant a message an AN/I link

3. @Kelisi

First of all, I think it is probably improper of you to issue a warning as an administrator with regard to a dispute in which you yourself are involved, and furthermore to threaten to block the user with whom you disagree. That ought to be done by a third party.

I am so sorry that you are not interested. The thing is, though, that you must be. I think you reverted the above just because you wanted to evade those first two points more than anything.

I am also not too sure that you are not violating WP:SOAP — but perhaps that's debatable. You have furthermore done nothing to make me think better of referring the matter of your behaviour to another administrator. diff

4. @Abductive

It seems like you have some WP:BATTLEGROUND inclinations. diff

5. @United States Man

Per WP:TR; I feel as though you should WP:ASG and be careful not to misinterpret situations with which you aren't involved diff

6. @CapeVerdeWave

I have enjoyed contributing here and do not wish to lose the privilege of doing so diff

Jasper's edit summary in removing that from his page you clearly didn’t read my edit notice which says to keep discussion on your talk page

I am unsure of where to go from here, or what to do about this. It is upsetting to me to see someone who has more privileges than an average wikipedian behave this way. Frankly, based on the reception I got to my post, I'm not even sure if I should be adding this to my post, but again: I cannot find any sort of documentation about where to put these findings otherwise. If there is a better venue/forum, please let me know.

Also, this is in no way comprehensive, and based solely on Jasper's edit summaries/diffs from his talk page. It appears as though this behavior goes back a long time, but I have not done a deep dive to see whether it is just his talk page/edit summaries, or other behavior, too.

Tagging those who have participated/are involved in the conversation so far, as I'm unsure if they will be notified of my comment: @Simonm223 @Alex_21 @Awshort @Cullen328 @Liz @Phil Bridger @Elmidae @Jasper Deng Delectopierre (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Let. It. Go. Both of your behaviours have been suboptimal, but below the threshold for anyone to do anything about it in an official capacity. Very bluntly now: if you are truly unable to stop obsessing about this, then yes, Misplaced Pages is the wrong venue for you to participate in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The only things I'm going to say are:

• Delectopierre is incorrect that I'm casting an aspersion because their talk page comment included a boldened, underlined, and all caps "third". Even here they both bolden and all caps "potentially". This is as WP:SHOUTING as it gets. Their overall tone is, as I said on Cullen's talk page, incredibly aggressive and condescending.
• As stated on Delectopierre's talk page, I already voluntarily disengaged from interactions with them after Alex rightly called me out for the now-hatted back and forth.
• However that does not enjoin me from replying to one other oppose out of the two or three others that were received in the intervening time frame and,
• Therefore, Delectopierre's comment on my talk page and bringing this here is unnecessary escalation, particularly the former, and,
• Consequently, I do not take back the comment I left Delectopierre on their talk page; as many would agree here, it takes two to disengage and that comment on my talk page was a gross slap in the face in view of my own attempt to disengage.
• I remain committed to that disengagement but not to the effect of recusing myself from the consensus forming process on the talk page. I don't own the discussion but it doesn't mean I can't still participate and comment in it.
• I also still am frustrated with Delectopierre for attempting to apply policies and guidelines they do not actually have a proficient understanding of in a way such that they imply or claim otherwise, such as WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON, or even WP:SHOUTING as demonstrated right here. That's no longer my problem as long as they do not do something like that talk page comment again.
• I apologize for the back and forth with Alex; however, I do not apologize to Delectopierre since they did not respect my own decision to not engage with them and continue to be condescending in this thread.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for how my comment on your talk page came across. That was not my intention. I thought I was following the suggested protocol. Delectopierre (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I have more to say but for now I will accept that apology. Whether I'll give my own is going to have to wait. At this point I'll leave that part up to other editors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I knew it would come here eventually, so here's a discussion I always thought stood out on their talk page: October 2024 (#Reversion): A user came to their talk page with concerns about a bad revert, and to that they responded with "That's not my problem. You should look at the totality of your edit". "That's not my problem" is an incredibly uncivil way to respond to a genuine question, period. E_F 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: Kindly, and bluntly, your participation here is not helpful. The topic at hand is the conflict between myself and Delectopierre. --Jasper Deng (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can comment on an ANI report, and I'm giving what I think is an appropriate example of uncivil behavior. Someone uninvolved can remove my above comment if they think it's irrelevant to the discussion. E_F 01:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the inability or unwillingness of either party to voluntarily Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, perhaps a two way interaction ban is necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I offered to and did, except I thought they should know I accepted their apology. How does that suggest an IBAN is needed?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, where did you do so prior to your comment on my talk page? I don't recall that happening, although I could be mistaken. That said, I am amenable to that as an option. How does that work if we are both working on an article/in a similar space? I'm thinking specifically of wildfires.

Delectopierre (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't explicitly say it. After my "olive branch" edit I made no more replies to you or Alex and kept to it, and my comment thus said I "quietly" did so. Since I perceive a need to answer questions, I recommend you do not continue to pose them. I don't want to engage in this conversation any longer than you do, and this will be my very last reply to you for any reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

1. It's not an olive branch to make an edit with a antagonizing comment.

2. 4ish hours after the edit you claim was an olive branch to silently disengage, you followed me to a user talk page to chide me in a conversation you were not at all involved in. That's neither an olive branch, nor voluntary disengagement. Delectopierre (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Given this engagement, I think an enforced IBAN is necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'm amenable to that. How do I find out the answers to the question I asked above? Delectopierre (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You got an answer. If you don't like it, there's nothing we can do about that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh? I said I'm amenable to the IBAN and asked how an IBAN works when we may both be editing in the same topic area and/or on the same articles. I have yet to see any answers.

I'm new so I'm trying to learn and ensure I follow the rules. I feel that the tone of your reply wasn't appropriate to someone trying to learn and it didn't assume good faith. Delectopierre (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:IBAN for answers. Remember that we are all volunteers, so may not have time to answer questions where you can easily read the answer yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You asked two questions above and were not clear what "answer" you were wanting beyond what Jasper gave you. Phil filled in the link to IBAN, and you got your answer from Jasper regarding your other question. Next time, you may just want to state the question you need further answers to, rather than link to a previous discussion & expect us to figure it out. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Unattributed machine translations by Loukus999

Loukus999 pblocked from articlespace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

• Loukus999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite claiming to be a native English speaker on their user page, Loukus999 has been using a machine translator to create multiple articles for the past year and a bit. They have been warned multiple times by multiple editors on their talk page to attribute their machine translations, which are often of poor quality. They have also been warned not to recreate deleted articles, again with the aid of a machine translator. They have never communicated with other editors on any of the issues brought up, and I know this because they have only ever made one edit to a talk page, and it was a poorly written request / complaint.

I warned Loukus999 prior that after 2,000+ edits to the mainspace, zero communication with other editors and repeatedly violating commonly understood policies was unacceptable, and I would take it to the noticeboard if these two things were to repeat, and so I now have done just that. Loukus999 recently created John Muir Memorial County Park, in a process which was so poorly done that ref tags have been left broken and there is a sentence proclaiming that "The full algorithm is available", followed by a citation to the bot / script that they presumably used.

Loukus999 has not been using translators / bots / scripts responsibly on the English Misplaced Pages, and has refused to communicate after ample requests and warnings from other editors. Yue🌙 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I happen to be very interested in John Muir and I've got to say that John Muir Memorial County Park is a shockingly bad article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's a direct translation of one of the ceb.wiki machine generated articles. CMD (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the most recent creation before that is Temple of Nabu (Palmyra), a translation of it:Tempio di Nebo that is still unattributed. CMD (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Yue, it would help if you listed some articles you are concerned about so other editors don't have to go searching for them. You're likely to get a better response from editors who browse ANI if you spell everything out and provide links. Liz 04:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not highlighting an issue with one or a few of Loukus999's articles, I am highlighting an issue with all their articles. They didn't just start doing poorly done translations without attribution; that's all they've been doing.I don't have to make a list either because Loukus999 already lists their "completed" and intended translation projects on their user page. Take for example, the first two articles they created on the list. Chiapanec people was obviously machine translated from es:Pueblo chiapaneca, with the exact same content but accompanied by grammatical errors and awkward phrasing in English. Same thing with Chimbu people, translated from ru:Чимбу. The problem is not only that Loukus999 doesn't attribute their translations, they also:

• Don't clean up their article afterwards, leaving it with grammatical mistakes, broken refs, and broken templates.
• Create translated articles without regard for past deletion discussions.
• Have not communicated with any editors despite several warnings over the past year.

So now there's about 80 live articles in the mainspace that are of poor quality, essentially machine translated without a second thought, and intended or otherwise, Loukus999 has shown that they do not care about site policy nor article quality by ignoring their talk page. Yue🌙 05:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If you check Loukus999's talk page, every thread is a message, automatically or manually written, left by editors informing Loukus999 of their editing issues and problems with their articles. They've had a full year since the first message to respond or acknowledge anything, but instead they just continue their problematic editing as nobody had yet brought it up seriously. Yue🌙 05:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

They have no edits in user talk and just one in article talk. I think they need a block for non-communication. --jpgordon 16:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Because Loukus999 has been consistently creating poor quality translations despite multiple warnings, I have indefintely blocked the editor from editing article space. They can create policy compliant, properly referenced draft translations and submit them to the Articles for Creation process. Communication with their fellow editors is required, as is producing high quality, policy compliant work. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Good block. When I see an editor translating from Cebuano, Spanish, Italian, and Russian (to name the examples listed above) but so obviously lacking in fluency in English, it makes me extremely skeptical that they are doing anything more than blind machine translation, not something we want to have here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Beeblebrox and copyright unblocks

This spirited discussion has been open for three days. Feedback has been given by various editors to Beeblebrox about their concerns regarding his copyright unblocks. A sanction has been proposed and consensus is against it (see below closure). We may be at, or past, the point where more heat than light is generated. I humbly suggest that we all move on (with Beeblebrox taking on the feedback), and if new concerns of new actions arise, start a new discussion. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Beeblebrox does not appear to appreciate that blocks for good-faith copyright violations cannot be sorted out with an apology and some WP:AGF, is not doing the basic due diligence required when dealing with these unblocks, and does not respond well to attempts by others to explain. Two recent examples:

• User talk:Jisshu#3rd Unblock request, blocked by DanCherek and follow-up by me on that talk page and at User talk:asilvering#I sure didn't
• User talk:Aguahrz#Unblock and follow-up at User talk:Beeblebrox#Please undo by Justlettersandnumbers

In neither case was the blocking admin consulted. In the latter example, the blocking admin asked him to revert his unblock; Beeblebrox declined. In the former example, I had earlier responded to the unblock request. The blocked editor was still editing on simple-wiki, so their contributions could easily be checked to see if they understood copyright; I said so, and was rebuffed (with bonus I have been an admin a lot longer than you, as though length of adminship tenure grants an exception from due diligence). In both cases, the editor was soon reblocked (by Izno). It is also worth noting that both of these unblock requests involved AI chatbots, which ought to be an especially red flag when we're dealing with editors blocked for copyright problems.

This is extremely bad practice, and it needs to stop. -- asilvering (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Beeblebrox should make a habit of speaking to the blocking admin before unblocking. He seems to be alone in not doing this, and it is part of WP:ADMIN policy. PhilKnight (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. Per the blocking policy Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Unblock requests and unblock guidelines Misplaced Pages:Appealing a block#Direct appeal.

Beeblebrox has said that they do not agree with or adhere to the idea that asking the blocking admin should be a de facto part of reviewing unblock requests, but until the consensus has changed, unblocking users without consulting the blocking admin would be violating policy.

And I personally believe that consulting the blocking admin before unblocking as a requirement is a good idea, so hopefully Beeblebrox will not repeat this again. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not a policy violation, policy states administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. Should avoid is not the same as shall not. The other is a guideline not a policy. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not always necessary to consult the blocking admin, per the wording of the policy, but it should be done when the unblock might be controversial. Beeblebrox currently doesn't seem to have a good sense of which blocks might be controversial to lift without consultation. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Controversy is also often in the eye of the beholder. If one is looking for controversy, one can usually find it quite easily. Especially when policy leaves room for discretion (which it probably should in many cases). Intothatdarkness 19:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• I credit Beeblebrox with putting their money where their mouth is and attempting to fix their perceived issues with blocking and the process, but I do think the blocking admin should in most cases be consulted(with some exceptions like but not limited to straight username blocks or where the blocking admin invites unblocking). 331dot (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Beeb's practice in this matter is both counter to policy and intuition. Why would an unblocking admin not want to ask the blocking admin something along the lines of, "Hey, is there anything I should know when considering unblocking this user?" Consulting simply means asking about the case to have more information; it does not mean that the unblocking admin must act in accordance with the blocking admin's wishes. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we get that explicitly written into policy then? Because it being a consultation to see if information is missing makes perfect sense, but how the process has actually worked in practice for years (and in places such as WP:REFUND requests) is not as an informational purpose, but instead to get "permission" from the blocking admin and, by their forbearance and mercy, will the action be allowed. But if the original admin disagrees, even without there being any extra information to back up and justify that stance, then it shall not be done. Because the original admin's actions are law and cannot be disputed and how dare you even try. Silverseren 19:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree it should be written into policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In my perspective, the unblock policy is fairly clear that the blocking admin should be consulted, but it doesn't state that administrators need permission from the blocking admin to unblock. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm very busy to day and have to go but the short answer is that making a user sit there and wait for however long it takes the blocking admin to show up has never seemd like a fair or useful requirtement in a case where there is extensive discussion between the blocked user and reviewing admins. Beeblebrox 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox, if the blocking administrator is on a lengthy wikibreak or has been desysopped or has died or refuses to respond to pings, then move ahead with the unblock, noting one of those factors. That does not seem to be the case here. Please discuss unblocks with the blocking adminstrator, as this is the normal expectation among administrators with the obvious exception of you. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, since everyone else appears to be understanding the problem here as "Beeb doesn't consult with the blocking admins", I included that information here as relevant context, but that isn't really the main issue at hand. The main issue at hand is that Beeblebrox believes himself to be competent to administrate copyright unblocks, and is evidently not. Consultation with the blocking admin might have helped in these cases, but given Beeb's responses to having these two unblocks questioned, I suspect it would have made little difference. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the second time the first unblock has been discussed. Is there a reason you're bringing it back here? I'm not sure two unblocks are. reasomable measure to determine whether @Beeblebrox is competent to administrate copyright unblocks. I don't think either that or not consulting blocking admin when there was already a discussion in progress with that admin is ANI worthy. Star Mississippi 21:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you see anything in these two unblocks and their subsequent discussions that suggests that he is competent to administrate copyright unblocks? In neither discussion has he even acknowledged that he had made any kind of mistake. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do. As well as in their long history as an admin. Editors can and will disagree, it's an opinion and neither of us is objectively correct. If you truly think he isn't competent, there are channels to bring it up. Bringing two unblocks, one a repeat, to ANI isn't going to accomplish anything. Star Mississippi 01:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You know, I feel like I have tried to meet you halfway recently, after admittedly being a little aggressive when first returning to handling unblock requests, but I'm getting the distinct impression at this point that you just don't like me no matter what. Suggesting that a slight disagreement like this indicates incompetence is a pretty nasty thing to do. Beeblebrox 23:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the faintest idea what I feel like I have tried to meet you halfway recently is referring to. Halfway to what? -- asilvering (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, how about his statement in the first unblock (the one where he ever so kindly tried to pull rank on asilvering after they disagreed with him), he stated that he would not, and did not intend to, perform due diligence (nope, I did not do what you said would be sufficient for you personally. Neither I nor anyone else is bound by that)? Or a little while later doubled down with I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do? How about the way he dismissed the amount of time and effort it takes those of us working in copyright cleanup to mop up after these mistakes (unblocks are cheap) and, perhaps this is the most important part of the entire situation, has stated that he believes copyright unblocks, and accepting them, are more a matter of good faith than anything else? (we've become a bit too unwilling to just give second chances when a user, as this one did, apologizes and commits not to repeat the behaviors that led to the block). Copyright issues aren't a simple matter of good faith by the way. Work one CCI, and you get to learn pretty much everything about an editor. You learn what what TV shows and music they like, where they're from, what little editing quirks they have, how they like to structure their articles - they're all unique. You know what's not unique? All them want to improve Misplaced Pages. Nobody's spending over a decade of their life hunting down old Albanian history books, finding the most niche tech stories, or updating every page related to a university in Florida because they want to hurt the encyclopedia, or because they're simply negligent and need to be reminded to keep their fingers off the Crtl+V shortcut. Copyright unblocks are rarely given until several warnings have passed- so by the time we get to one, we've already repeatedly told a user "hey, if you copy-paste content into Misplaced Pages again you will be blocked". There's really not much room for misunderstanding there. And as much as I wish with all my heart and soul that we could give these people who plagiarize easy second chances, the severity of the issue and the difficulty in cleanup means that second chance has to be earnt. If we give somebody one last chance not to spam links, or mess with ENGVAR, or write promotional garbage, it'll be pretty easy for the community to tell if they go right back to their old habits, and any damage they do those issues are trivial to fix by a newbie rollbacker. Copyright issues? No- they can take weeks to months to years to be caught again - let alone clean up! We've got like like a dozen editors active in the copyright cleanup area? To really put things in perspective, I'm the newest and I got involved in 2023. We don't have the manpower to spare to do the due diligence Beeblebrox doesn't want to. The only reason the Jisshuu issue got cleaned up so fast is because asilvering was proactive, because @MrLinkinPark333: and I spent a few hours digging through old books, and because I went to pester Beeblebrox on his talk page to mass-undo the most recent edits. (At some point, in his mind, this morphed into I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself... which I guess is technically true? But he certainly did not show the initiative to do this himself). And instead of thanking asilvering for going to extra mile, he did the entire meaning no offense, I have been an admin a lot longer than you thing. Of course, Beeblebrox could have done due dilligence, I suppose. But if that's the case, then that means that yesterday we saw a very long term admin look at a user whose average talkpage message looked something like

Helloo🙄, The Page you are talking about is "GDP nominal" , The Page i created is "gdp per Capita nominal". For PPP it has to articles gdp PPP and gdp PPP per Capita. So?, You need to review that.

and (in response to an earlier copyright warning, btw)

East Africa City States Existed, You can't just delete an Article even without verifying..You are the one violating Misplaced Pages Terms

and then believed, no questions asked, that they wrote and understood

I apologize for the copyright violation in my contributions and understand the importance of adhering to Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. Moving forward, I will create original content, properly attribute sources, and ensure all materials comply with Misplaced Pages’s licensing requirements. I have reviewed the relevant guidelines to prevent future infractions. I kindly request reconsideration of my case and assure you of full compliance in my future contributions

and

If I happen to find valuable information in a copyrighted source, I will make sure to write it completely in my own words while still capturing the main idea and will also make sure to properly cite it to give credit where due without violating any policies

which is far more concerning. Either way, he hasn't demonstrated that he is willing to properly administer copyright unblocks. And don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of the "you must wait until the blocking admin responds before unblocking" culture, and I think we should trust that all admins have the common sense to deal with the average spam-block or disruptive editing block without waiting 10 days and multiple pings just for the blocking admin to not oppose the unblock. And I think there's ample room in our current system to occasionally override a block, or IAR and quickly unblock. But copyright blocks are a different beast, and I'm disappointed that Beeblebrox's response to criticism has been what it was.

1. I agree with this in principle, by the way - or at least, I think we have one too many admins who are far too willing to block for even the most minor instances of disruption, and then drag their heels and attack admins who unblock, or mislead them into thinking they aren't allowed to unblock without consent, or who resort to personal attacks, use rollback, and levy level4im vandalism warnings against good-faith bystanders who try to help. And as long as those admins still have tools, we need admins like Beeblebrox who are willing to stand up to them an unblock obviously good faith newbies
2. Copypatrol has limited functionality and NPP is not suited to catch anything but the most blatant copy-pastes from Earwig-readable online and well-linked sources

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I would count my re-block in the second case as more-or-less coincidental, myself. I do think that consulting the blocking admin per policy is a good idea, and echo Cullen's "well, if they appear to have been hit by a bus, then you should feel free to 'be bold'". Izno (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that they were reblocked for socking has nothing at all to do with what they were previously blocked for, so it's a bit odd to see it held up here as an example of my recklessness. Unblocking, no matter who is consulted before hand, is always a risk, but when the original issue was copyvios and the reblock is for socking that was detected by a checkuser, it's hard to see how one can say the unblocking admin should have known about a completely unrelated second issue that required functionary permissions to detect.

The other account was rightly reblocked because they lied during the unblock process, which we had no way of knowing until they were unblocked and immediately started acting the fool, at which point they were blocked again and I pitched in cleaning up the bit of a mess they left in their wake.

Whatever one may think about me not consulting with the blocking admin, these two unblocks don't prove anything besides the already known fact that sometimes people lie. That's just part of what admins deal with every day if they are doing actual admin work. Beeblebrox 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem: they didn't lie. They did not intend to deceive - they genuinely believed that they'd figured out the issue. Copyright blocks are nearly always done against good-faith users, and while it would be lovely to distill it down to some morally simple "they continue the behaviour => they were a liar all along", its not that simple and it never has been. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

However one interprets it, they made it seem as though they understood the issue, at which point it is not unreasonable to see if that is really the case by unblocking, as it had already been discussed at length.

That was my point when I originally wrote my most oft-cited essay, Give 'em enough rope fifteen years ago, and it remains my point today. At a certain point the only way to actually know is to give them a chance. While we always hope they succeed, sometimes they have learned nothing, and we block them again. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Neither of these people created large problems after I unblocked them. I helped clean up after one while the other did not make a single edit in the interval between when I unblocked them and when they were found by a checkuser to be a sock. The harm here was extremely minimal and easily reverted.

Unlike AN, ANI is for asking for consequences, via administrative action because a user demonstrates a pattern of behavior that is harming the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that case has been made here and I don't believe I see a request for any specific sanction against me, so unless and until those things change I think I'm done here. Beeblebrox 01:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox it's not up to you to decide whether the community thinks you're out of line. Nobody wants to sanction you, but when users turn a blind eye to the community's feedback that's usually what winds up happening. Please reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox I’ll plug my essay on this matter: User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks. Personally, I think it’s better to ask editors to rewrite the content they were blocked for rather than quizzing them about copyright policy. Beebs, I think you know that I welcome your efforts with improving our unblock system, and I think the first cited unblock was a reasonable Good faith unblock, even if it wasn’t perfect (I mean, me and Diannaa have unblocked editors on promises of no longer adding copyvios, and have had to reblock them— it happens). On the other hand, I think you were too hasty in reversing JLAN’s block, especially given what you were told after the first unblock. I think more conversation would’ve been better, and that while contacting JLAN for “permission” to unblock isn’t strictly required, you could have pinged him saying you were intending on unblocking. I’ll contrast this with your comment on user talk:PavKls, which I think reflects a better approach to these sorts of blocks. I hope this is something that can be moved on from, and that you continue to look at unblocks that might slip through our systemic cracks, while also being diligent while looking into the background. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• No, look, don't unilaterally unblock people who copyvio. That's not okay and it ought to be obvious why. Never do it again.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox, please do not try to brush off the valid concerns that have been expressed here about your strange stance that discussing unblock requests with the blocking administrator is unnecessary. As you well know, this is a collaborative project and that includes collaboration among administrators. Please commit to discussing unblocks with the blocking administrator at the minimum, except in extraordinary circumstances. Two heads are better than one. It is quite disconcerting to read the things that you are saying. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  In case you missed it, last month I reported at AN regarding finding what I believe were some serious issues in how unblock requests are being handled. In one of these threads I specifically mentioned asilvering as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking admin when reviewing a particular unblock request. I did not suggest this was malicious or deliberate or a sign of incompetence, just an error.

  I don't think it is a coincidence that now two relatively harmless unblocks are being held up as evidence that I am incompetent to handle unblock requests. Beeblebrox 02:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't miss it and I think it's why you're maybe having trouble hearing the sensible advice being offered to you by Cullen (and echoed by lots of other people like Izno, Moneytrees, 331dot, PhilKnight, deadbeef, and Elli in their own ways). Whether or not unblocks of copyright blocks are appropriate has seen a number of different viewpoints, but I'm seeing pretty unanimous support for the idea that you've been seeing exceptions that others don't see in when to consult. I specifically highlight Cullen's words because of the clear way he lays out when consulting may not make sense. I write this to you in the spirit of Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't utterly reject the very idea that soliciting comment from the blocking admin can be helpful. I have done so on many past occasions. However, in very straighforward cases where the block reason is obvious and the blocked user admits their error and pledges not to repeat it, I'm at a loss as to what special insight we expect that the blocking admin will always have, but will not share with us unless specifically asked. I can say I am willing to have a more open mind about when to seek that opinion out and when not to, but I can't accept that it is a hard-and-fast rule, because it isn't. Beeblebrox 03:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  As asilvering noted above, the purpose of this thread was not about whether you contacted the blocking admin but rather that you unblocked two users blocked for copyright with huge red flags in their unblock requests. The first had been editing on Simple Wiki during their EnWiki block, where they were continuing to including copyrighted material in their edits. The second was an editor clearly using an LLM in their unblock request, making it unclear to anyone whether they actually understood policy and would follow it. This isn't about AGF, ROPE, or pinging the blocking admin. It's about being inadequately reviewing the evidence provided and not understanding the seriousness of copyright issues.. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad that I didn't do what you think I should have, but was in no way actually obligated to do. I'm an admin on en.wp, the main thing I know about other projects is that they all make their own rules that may or may not be as strict as ours. And again, this situation was resolved with minimal harm nearly a month ago. Beeblebrox 03:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Can you please stop trying to make assumptions about other editors' emotional states with regards to this discussion? You've accused me of a retaliatory filing, which makes no sense at all (if you did indeed specifically mention me as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking admin, well, please let me know again, since it went completely over my head), and now you're saying that Significa liberdade is angry with you, when as far as I can tell she's simply trying to explain to you what the issue at hand here actually is. Whether other projects have different rules has nothing to do with whether or not an editor understands how to write without infringing copyright.

  The situation was evidently not resolved, since you've done another "AGF" unblock on copyright without checking that the editor has actually understood the situation. For all I know there have been others as well, and I'm only aware of these two. It's one thing to shrug and make this kind of unblock when we're dealing with someone with a history of simple vandalism; they'll be easy to catch again if they go back to their old ways, and will be reblocked with minimal fuss. Copyvio is much less reliably caught and is a tremendous amount of work to clean up after. -- asilvering (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll gladly concede that that copyvios are a serious issue that should not be taken lightly, I think we all agree on that, but it wasn't actually a big deal with the post post-block edits of either of the users I unblocked. Beeblebrox 05:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory. There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI? Beeblebrox 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  What could I possibly be retaliating against? The worst thing you've done to me is be condescending. (Well, and give me and others some extra work to do, I suppose, cleaning up after the first one.) We're at ANI because, as I said in my initial post, your approach to copyright is extremely bad practice, and it needs to stop. I wasn't able to convince you to take copyright seriously and the problem has recurred. Right now it still looks likely to recur again, so it is very much an ongoing issue, if a slow-moving one. Please, investigate copyright concerns thoroughly, or leave them for someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't very consistent with the discussion on my talkpage where you objected to my username/promotion block for an editor that you chose to warn rather than block ; while I agree that I should have checked to see if that editor had been specifically warned (and then I unblocked as you asked), it seems to me that if you're expecting consultation over blocking someone you didn't block, you should expect to have to consult over an unblock. I realize you're trying to accomplish changes to the blocking process to be less, erm, blocky, but this seems a little hard to follow. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unblocking someone is often, usually even, not at all equivalent to overturning the blocking admins decision. That would be the distinction as I see it. Beeblebrox 03:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Your argument at the time was essentially that my decision to block overturned your decision not to block. While I personally do not insist on consultation regarding a change in one of my actions, it's generally a good gesture, and widely practiced. Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I specifically mentioned asilvering as one of three admins who had missed an obvious error by a blocking adminI don't think it is a coincidence Sorry, but as a participant in that thread, where exactly did this happen? Diffs, please. You've been around long enough to know the rules about this. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I apparently misremembered. asilvering was very upset by what I said but was not one of the admins I specifically mentioned in that case. Beeblebrox 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I confess that I am totally bewildered about why a highly experienced adminstrator is behaving in what appears to me to be a haughty and tone deaf manner. Cullen328 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Beebs doesn't seem to be the only one behaving in a "haughty and tone deaf manner." Everyone on this thread frankly seemed to be going in for their pound of flesh. I thought this was supposed to be a "collaborative community," not a flock of vultures circling a fresh carcass. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

+1. The level of the temperature here seems FAR higher than what should be merited by the complaint. ⇒SWATJester 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Those on the "other side" are insisting this is not personal or in any way a reaction to the previous AN threads I opened last month around issues I saw at RFU, but I can't recall a previous time that I saw several admins insist another admin was incompetent because of granting one unblock request that went slightly awry and was quickly and thoroughly dealt with, with assistance from the unblocking admin. If that is now sanctionable behavior, we'd lose a boatload of admins pretty quick.

I can agree to consider copyvio-related unblock requests more carefully, but I utterly reject the premise that this one unblock demonstrates incompetence. Beeblebrox 19:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"It does bother me a little that somehow the users who seem the most upset with me are all women."

Um, excuse me? We're going to circle back round to the copyright thing, but what the ever living fuck is this comment? First of, as far as I know, you're wrong dk why you've imprinted on asilvering = fem, but they don't discloser their gender on or offwiki. Secondly, again, why is this relevant? Like, seriously. Not looking to turn this into Beeblebrox and WPO part 2: Electric Boogaloo, (if you say something about how that's just how you talk to your mates in a bar, I shall scream) but how is my gender relevant to this issue??? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox I was mad and forgot to ping. scroll up. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you've got my intent there backwards.It bothers me because I don't like the idea that somehow my actions or attitude are specifically offensive to women. However, I'm unable to see why that would be. Just a little self-doubt is all. Beeblebrox 21:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Pray tell what intent I've ascribed to your actions, because as far as I know, I just don't get why you feel the need to comment on my gender at all.

@S Marshall I give up. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, I don't know what users you were talking about when you wrote that comment, but the only person I see in this thread that I can confidently describe as "upset" is GLL, and what upset her was your comment about upsetting women. I think we can probably chalk that one up to a mutual misunderstanding and let it drop. I'm glad you've agreed to consider copyvio-related unblock requests more carefully. -- asilvering (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

GLL, you have not explicitly said what you thought or imagined the intent was, but you did explicitly say I was mad. So I don't think I'm way out in left field in saying that you seem to believe my intent to be something other than what I was trying to express, which I have already endeavored to explain. You may chose to believe my explanation or not as you see fit. Beeblebrox 00:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

GLL, you're right to give up. Let it go. Beebs has got the message. He can count how many people are cross and he knows the maths at recall. He gets it. We won't see this again.

If you're looking for a clearer admission of error, you won't get one. People have pride.

If you're looking for an explanation of the women comment, assume that of all the possible meanings, Beebs meant the least creepy.

This is all over. Someone will close it soon.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

somehow my actions or attitude are specifically offensive to women. However, I'm unable to see why that would be. Going out of one's way to make commentary along the lines of 'the people who are mad at me are all women' (the users who seem the most upset with me are all women.") (especially when it ends up not being knowably true) seems pretty plainly sexist; it resonates with a long history of dismissing criticism on the grounds that the critics are women and therefore excessively emotional. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. I was pondering what I had done so wrong that women in particular seemed to be upset with my actions, so that I could avoid doing so again but I wasn't able to parse out exactly what that might be.

That it is now having the opposite effect is a terrible and unintended result, and another reminder that sometimes I should just keep some of my thoughts in my head, lest they be grossly misunderstood if I write them down. Beeblebrox 01:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

On one hand, I agree with the sentiment that it's rather asinine when one of the parties to a noticeboard dispute types half of their statements to their interlocutors here, and slaps the other half on a forum where some crazy guy will stalk your family if you mention its existence. However, this seems to me like a completely inverted reading of Beebs' post:

It does bother me a little that somehow the users who seem the most upset with me are all women. I don't think I've acted like an overbearing mansplainer, and I certainly have not talked down to anyone due to their gender.

It seems clear to me that this post is bemoaning that his attempts to be intersectionally uplifting and Mind The Gap and etc have not succeeded, as opposed to being some sort of misog chud missive. jp×g🗯️ 00:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Man, I thought wikipedia admins were supposed to be civil to others jpxg. It appears I was mistaken. How disappointing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the fun house. And they wonder why people leave... Intothatdarkness 02:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

two admins behaving in an uncivil manner towards their colleague. That is indeed disappointing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to with this comment. Do you think I am obliged to stand by and say nothing when a person's words are misinterpreted? What are you talking about? Did you respond to the wrong post? jp×g🗯️ 04:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I definitely did respond to the right post. I would not regard referring to someone as a "chud" as being particularly civil. Disappointed that you don't see the issue with your own post.Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not do that. Please see wikt:as opposed to. jp×g🗯️ 05:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I will retract my statements having had a better chance to read what you said. Not a big fan of your snark though. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage Beeblebrox to read this thread and maybe recalibrate his approach to copyright blocks. By the tenor of that thread and this thread, I think the prevailing attitude surrounding copyright unblocks is that the threshold for an unblock is becoming way higher (and I think it's a correct one in my view). No opinion as to disallowing Beebs to accept copyright-related unblocks, but I think he needs to be more careful with them. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Can't both things be true: (a) that we need to protect the encyclopaedia (and the community), and copyvio is one of the more obvious cases; AND (b) that admins trying to do (a) sometimes make mistakes and spotting them is also part of the cluefulness the community expects in an admin? (It's not as if all the blocked editors are convicted murderers seeking to get out of jail, or as if all blocking admins have Papal infallibility. Or as if the unblock request system is designed to be a consensus discussion.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to accept copyright-related unblock requests

There is consensus against the proposed sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

When dealing with copyright unblocks, Beeblebrox has expressed intent to test whether somebody really understands copyright, not by doing due diligence or consulting with those more experienced in copyright issues than he, but by unblocking the editor. This has so far resulted in the unblock of one editor where there was clear evidence that they had continued good-faith plagiarism on other English-language WMF projects, and one on the say-so of a chatbot. He has cast aspersions and insulted both good-faith users who don't understand copyright and editors who bring up issues with his actions. While acknowledging that these two situations ended up being fixed relatively quickly, that was only due to the proactive behaviour of third-parties. Under normal circumstances these would be chocked up as a learning experience, but his comments make it very clear that he has not learnt anything, that he is unwilling to listen to the concerns of other editors, and will continue to act in the same manner going forward. Therefore, I am proposing that Beeblebrox is not allowed to unblock editors blocked for copyright infringement or plagiarism.

1. "I have a long-held belief that unblocking is, in many cases, preferable to talking it out for several days or weeks, and that unblocks are cheap"
2. Jisshu unblock, December 2024
3. Aguahrz unblock, January 2025
4. "they lied during the unblock process"
5. "Suggesting that a slight disagreement like this indicates incompetence is a pretty nasty thing to do"
6. "It's really petty that this already resolved situation is being brought up nearly a month later because you are still mad"
7. "I will not, however, back down on the idea that this seems retaliatory"
8. "it wasn't actually a big deal"
9. "these two unblocks don't prove anything besides the already known fact that sometimes people lie"
10. "There's not a serious ongoing issue currently causing harm to the encyclopedia, so why are we at ANI?"
11. "I think that, realistically, the bar is somewhere around 'a grasp of the general idea that you can't just copy someone else's work and repost it like it was your own work'"

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I'm not a fan of holding editors responsible for the actions of others, but Beeblebrox's ideas about when copyright unblocks are needed (see the last footnote) are not great. This is the least invasive action I can think of that will limit disruption to Misplaced Pages articles. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• oppose is this the Spanish Inquisition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Premature. Give the man a chance to read the room and think. He will figure out that "I've upset Asilvering in the past, therefore Asilvering is wrong" is not a workable defence, and then he'll get the message. Beebs is on a crusade to improve our unblocking response, and that's a good thing; he's just got to recalibrate about who he unblocks. He will. Beebs isn't stupid, he's just bad at listening.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

A wise man. scope_creep 10:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully you're right, S Marshall, and it wouldn't surprise me that much if everything you've said is true. The very impressive way he's making this all about whether to consult the unblocking or not isn't exactly giving me faith that he'll figure it out any time soon, but fingers crossed! And, I know I'm repeating myself here but for the avoidance of doubt I don't give a monkey's about consulting the blocking administrator in every case, I agree with most of the crusade and did a decent amount of legwork which enabled me to bring up examples in the previous AN thread of unblocks gone bad . @Beeblebrox, as somebody who is also one-track minded to a fault, please listen to S Marshall, read the words I am typing, and at least try understand where I and the others in this thread are coming from, because it's not what you think. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I fully understand that the original intent of this thread was not "he didn't consult with the blocking admin" but rather "he sucks at reviewing copyvio-related unblock requests". I don't think it was me alone who changed the focus to consulting the blocking admin, the other respondents, mostly admins themselves, did that.

Putting that issue aside, and I mean in this in the nicest possible way, if you're going to try and get somebody sanctioned for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, you need to come locked and loaded with a lot more than what has been presented here, which realistically, is one single unblock. If you're going to call someone incompetent at anything, you should probably anticipate a strong response to such a personal and insulting accusation.

I'm open to criticism, but this sanction attempt was so thin on evidence that it's practically invisible.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're ok in general but this proposed sanction was a very premature gross overreaction. Beeblebrox 02:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

On consulting the blocking admin, I'm 100% with you. I've been the victim of a bad block (by a sitting arb, in fact). That's how I know that the character who blocked me shouldn't ever become the gatekeeper for my unblock. I'm passionate about that on principle.

I think it's a great pity that some people have made this into a thread about consulting the blocker. I don't blame you for focusing on that side of it because on that side of it you're in the right, at a fundamental, ethical level.

But on unblocking copyright violating editors, your position is not exactly akin to Gibraltar.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support, mostly per Beeblebrox's own comment above: Unlike AN, ANI is for asking for consequences, via administrative action because a user demonstrates a pattern of behavior that is harming the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that case has been made here and I don't believe I see a request for any specific sanction against me, so unless and until those things change I think I'm done here. Since that comment, he's continued to not get it, and to impugn the motives of basically everyone who disagrees with him. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose premature and unnecessary. Two blocksunblocks, one of which was hashed out a month ago, does not prove a large issue that merits consequences. Star Mississippi 13:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as too soon. Let's see how things turn out... - UtherSRG (talk)
• Oppose. Several people, including myself, observed in 2024 that our requests for unblock process had become schlerotic and was suffering from undue months-long delays, largely as the result of too few administrators working CAT:RFU. More recently the situation has improved substantially, with Beeblebrox being responsible for much of the improvement, both by pointing attention to the problem (albeit not always in the same words I would use), and by himself acting on many of the pending requests. I do agree that consulting the initial blocking admin is typically appropriate and can lead to important information (for example, in one recent case I reviewed, I was puzzled at a block that appeared to be an overreaction to a single dubious edit, but I had forgotten to check the user's edit-filter log, which made the reason crystal-clear). I can also agree, based on several people's observations above, that copyvio blocks can call for a little extra caution, and that these days we now need to be scrutinizing unblock requests for insincere chatbot-generated garbage. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of improved admin responsiveness to unblock requests should continue and Beeblebrox should continue to be part of the solution. I also commend the other admins who have pitched in recently in this area; to state the obvious, the more people share the workload, the less will be the burden, stress, or risk of burnout on any one admin, and the more fair will be our unblock requests process both to the blocked users and to everyone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose With apologies that I didn't fully read all of the background that led to this particular thread. I agree that Cat:RFU has too few admins working at and I say this is someone who is probably never contributed, but as someone who does at least my fair share investigating copyright issues, I do know a little about the situation. While I think it's fair to assert that most copyright violations are good faith errors, it doesn't follow that most blocks for copyright violations are good faith errors. (I'm not suggesting that anyone specifically said that, but it's a possible take away.) Speaking only for my personal approach, I review a lot of potential copyright violations. I reverted and warned many violators. I don't believe I've ever personally blocked anyone for a single violation. The rare cases I block someone for copyright violations is when it has been repeated even after warnings. In my opinion if you've been warned and still do it, it is no longer good faith. That might not be malicious it might be incompetence, but it then deserves a block. I agree it is best practice to talk to the blocking administrator, and while I personally try to make sure to stay active for a period of time after blocking someone, that's not always possible, so I'm not in favor of requiring interaction with the blocking administrator. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - With Misplaced Pages likely to be playing defense in the coming few years, I'm sympathetic to being extra cautious when it comes to potential legal vulnerabilities, and agree with some of the procedural criticisms in the thread above, but this seems like an unnecessary escalation amid active conversation. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support his responses don't inspire confidence. He doesn't seem to care that other admins find some of his behavior in unblock requests subpar. I would expect a more robust response and an acknowledgement to do better. I often hear that admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and I don't believe his responses here meet that standard. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Premature per S Marshall (both in the !voting and the excellent comment above). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Aguahrz was re-blocked for matters unrelated to copyright. One example does not suggest a wider problem requiring a bizarre type of topic ban. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose regardless of the intent when openeing this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that the bulk of commenters are in fact upset that I often do not consult with thr blocking admin, I don't see a consensus that these two unblocks represent a pattern of causing real harm to the encyclopedia, to the extent that a sanction is required. I have already said I will try to keep a more open mind about it going forward, you can beleive that or not, but a topic ban is obviously grossly premature. Beeblebrox 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  While acknowledging that these two situations ended up being fixed relatively quickly, that was only due to the proactive behaviour of third-parties is exceptionally bullshitty.

  The admin who reblocked in the second case not "fixing my error," they discovered using checkuser that the user was a sock and blocked them. It had nothing whatsoever to do with copyvios or my decision to unblock them.

  And in the first case, as I've mentioned, as soon as I became aware of their activities I went in and helped clean it up, as GLL is perfectly aware since they were the one who asked me to do so. Beeblebrox 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've just now noticed that the proposal is "Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to accept copyright-related unblock requests" (emphasis added). So, I'm competent to deny such requests, just not to accept? How does that make sense? Beeblebrox 03:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose premature, willing to accept Beeblebrox's course correction. Once upon a time, different things were thought of as cowboy adminning than they are today, and community norms change. I know that from experience. Andre🚐 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unnecessary. FOARP (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I don't think the argument that Beebs is somehow not competent to handle copyright unblocks has merit. As has been pointed out, policy does not strictly require consultation -- it's a "should" do, and there are valid reasons (both the "hit by bus" argument and as Brad points out "our unblocking process sucks") why an administrator may choose not to consult. There's a reason, for instance, that CTOPS/AE unblocks explicitly have a different unblocking process -- if the community wanted a no-exceptions blanket policy, they would have implemented one. I'm honestly surprised by the level of hostility he's getting here. ⇒SWATJester 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This feels like it's about far more than what's being presented here. As others have noted there's a significant level of hostility here that doesn't feel warranted. In any case, restrictions of the kind proposed are premature at best. Intothatdarkness 14:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. The threaded discussion from prior to this proposal should keep going.—Alalch E. 14:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not seeing a pattern of multiple bad unblocks that would justify this sanction. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose absurdly massive overreaction, if not a solution looking for a problem. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Tendentious name changing by MŞ46

Pblock from mainspace applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

MŞ46 has been changing Bangladeshi placenames from WP:COMMONNAME to WP:OFFICIALNAME for over a month. They were warned against this on their talk page on 7 and 13 December, but did not reply.

They were warned again on 15 December, and replied to the effect that they were using the official names (which is not in dispute). On 16 December, I made a more detailed reply, again emphasising what the common name is and that Misplaced Pages's policy is to use it. They stopped answering in English, but replied in Bengali on 25 December. In reply, I explained yet again on 29 December.

In the past three days, with no further communication on their part, they have changed names in 80+ articles (from North 24 Parganas district to Schools in Cumilla) in violation of policy and consensus.

They need to be blocked to stop the disruption to Bangladesh and West Bengal-related articles. Perhaps an initial block will get them to understand policy and that repeatedly violating it has consequences. If their fluency in English is insufficient to comprehend the policy or to collaborate by communicating in English, then more drastic measures may be needed. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• They've started moving pages as well . I've pblocked them from mainspace, perhaps they will start communicating, if possible. I haven't reverted their previous edits, but could do a mass rollback if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Jwa05002 and User:RowanElder Making Ableist Comments On WP:Killing of Jordan Neely Talk Page, Threats In Lead

RowanElder has apologised and their comments have been explained. Jwa05002 ignored the first law of holes and has been indef'd with TPA revoked. Looks like we're done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

This occurred on the Killing of Jordan Neely, on the talk page section of Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Threats in the lead. @RowanElder decided they could say I couldn't ask for civility in a discussion after it became what I found uncivil. This discussion was already ended. They made comments that I couldn't ask for civility because apparently my userpage was uncivil. They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic and incompetent because they saw I mentioned I was Autistic on my page and then linked to the competence required article. (Personal attack removed) and then went on a rant about how Misplaced Pages shouldn't allow "severely mentally ill people edit" and how it's sad that Misplaced Pages has devolved to it. RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help. I shouldn't need to say more really. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh forgot to @Jwa05002 Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

• Akechi - typically, linking to specific WP:DIFFS rather than talk page sections is the best thing to do when making an ANI report; that is, linking and , which I assume are the comments you're referring to. Procedural niceties aside, I think you have a right to be upset - the comment by Jwa05002 seems to reflect a very ugly attitude toward mental illness, and RowanElder's remarks are incredibly patronizing - I don't think the comment in which they say I hope Misplaced Pages can perhaps follow best practices from special education experts to deal with ways they may try to participate with disruptive incompetence. It's certainly not a personal attack to try to get people help, even when they take it as such and even react violently against the help as if it were an attack. could have been more perfectly calculated to infuriate its target if that were their intention, and when they commented ...you're probably deliberately victimizing people who share your struggle. It's sad to see, but again, I'm assuming good faith and I'm sympathetic rather than insulting here it does not at all come across like someone who is AGFing. I hope the community will agree that the conduct of these two users is not acceptable and make that clear to them. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Who would have more relevant expertise than special education experts, here? Honestly? In dealing with good faith but disruptive contributions to something a lot like classwork?

  Please assume good faith for me as well, here. RowanElder (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  You cannot substitute your personal experience for reliable sources, nor can you analyze other editors, and especially you cannot resort to personal attacks such as disruptive incompetence. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am definitely confused about this.

  First, I have seen and been told "competence is required" many times and I generally assumed good faith constructive criticism and policy enforcement there rather than that the person invoking "competence is required" was making a personal attack. I have had a lot of trouble understanding what is regarded as incivility and not in this community.

  Second, it seems prima facie that editors do analyze one another frequently, for instance I was just analyzed and will be further analyzed in this incident notice discussion so long as it continues, so I am confused what you mean here. RowanElder (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CIR is an evaluation only when users have demonstrated repeated inability to edit collaboratively due to either refusal to read the rules, or inability comprehend them. It's not a blanket for you to insult a user by stating their edits are disruptive incompetence.

  Your second point is rhetorical wordplay, and does not reflect well on you. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand this and I'm not doing wordplay. I'm genuinely confused. But I'll knock it off anyway; I'm going to take a break. RowanElder (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  As a disabled person who currently works in special education, there are many reasons we wouldn't want "special education experts" (or their suggestions) dispatched to deal with a Certain Kind of Contributor. For one, it's a bit patronizing as described above--why do certain editors have to be dealt with under certain different people or rules? It's also worth noting that a lot of special education professionals, even ones who believe they're doing good things, often adopt practices that can be hurtful or problematic--this is all anecdotal, of course, but a number of my coworkers will miss very obvious potential causes of student distress just because they don't get distressed by the same thing, and at least one of my other coworkers was directly ableist to another of my coworkers behind her back without even realizing that's what she was doing. If there's anyone who can speak to best practices about interaction it's probably people with the disability in question (i.e. the Nothing about us without us stance), but to be honest, in practice, Misplaced Pages's existing guidelines and policies regarding user interaction and editing do a pretty good job of setting the ground rules and describing what you need to do to edit collaboratively in a productive way. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  My comments did not communicate my intent well to this community, and I have apologized for that. I recognize these concerns, and if I had written longer comments, adding these concerns would have been among my first extensions of what I wrote. I was disruptively incompetent when it came to speaking to the sensitivities in this community. RowanElder (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(0) The discussion had seemed inconclusive to me rather than ended. My prior experience as an editor has been mostly on pages where weeks can go between talk messages easily, so if this was a mistake it was a newcomer's mistake of not understanding the different tempo on this page.

(1) I did not say @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos could not ask for civility; I did find it ironic that they would ask for civility given that their userpage at that time seemed quite uncivil. I do think this indicates incompetence at judging civility and incivility and I, possibly erroneously, did not think it would be an aspersion or personal attack to say so on the basis of the immediate and policy-relevant (disruptive editing policy, explained by "competence is required") evidence. There is a "competence is required" principle and I have seen it invoked without violating the "no personal attacks" policy, though I'll be first to admit I don't understand the lines there very well.

(2) I did not endorse or "go along with" @Jwa05002's characterization of @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos as schizophrenic: I passed over it in silence trying "not to take the bait" of what could have easily become personal attacks (not that I thought @Jwa05002 was making a personal attack there, more like personally despairing of the challenge of finding consensus about reality with self-identified schizophrenics and autistics). I flatly disagreed with @Jwa05002 that "this is what Misplaced Pages has become."

(3) I do endorse a general principle that when mental illness compromises an editor's competence, they should not edit Misplaced Pages in the domains in which they are thereby incompetent. I do believe "competence is required" and I don't know why mental illness would possibly be an exception. (I can't imagine what fun I might have had editing in the archaeoastronomy area recently if Misplaced Pages did allow that exception!)

(4) I do hope that the admins and arbs and the community as a whole will figure out good, humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages. RowanElder (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like everyone to everyone to note point 4, I think we should note the "humane best practices for dealing with mentally ill editors on Misplaced Pages" part. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Should Misplaced Pages deal inhumanely with the mental ill? What is going on here? I am extremely lost. RowanElder (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot diagnose other people as mentally ill. That is a direct personal attack and can result in you being sanctioned. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course: I did not call anyone mentally ill much less diagnose anyone. I pointed out that an editor self-identified as autistic without intending that to be an attack. And I won't even do that again, since "assuming good faith" is not extending to "assuming that references to mental illness are not necessarily attacks." Probably correctly, in retrospect for me! But the "assume good faith" policy has been something I've myself been incompetent to understand in its community-consensus application so far on Misplaced Pages, and so I was disruptively incompetent and I've both apologized for that and said I would avoid doing it again. RowanElder (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The user in question has described themselves as schizophrenic in previous posts. Schizophrenia by definition is a mental illness.

Schizophrenia Jwa05002 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No I didn't you are thinking of another user I will not name. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (but I did the work, so I'm posting it) (Non-administrator comment) OP, you should provide diffs. You did link to the conversation, but every specific instance of untowardness you mention should be cited directly, as a courtesy to the admins' time. But I read the whole conversation and don't like it, so I did some legwork for you. They then proceeded to say it was fine because I wasn't acting in bad faith but rather just being Autistic. This edit was amended. Jwa proceeded to come in and say I was a schizophrenic. RowanElder then proceeded to say it's fine and the admins would instead give me special help.

I view assuming an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence to not actually be WP:AGF, but I defer. I don't know that this warrants being at ANI or if it's just bad behavior, but the schizophrenia thing certainly deserves an apology from both of them. I'm not involved. Just providing diffs. POST EDIT CONFLICT: I also don't buy Rowan's argument that they weren't going along with the schizophrenia thing. closhund/talk/ 07:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"You don't buy it"? Where is the assumption of good faith here? RowanElder (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not generically assume "an autistic person's edits to be a result of incompetence" but specifically suggested that their social judgment about particular incivility was incompetent in this case. I would never do the former, and frankly it is an aspersion to suggest I did. RowanElder (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying I or other Autistic people for that matter can't pass social judgement? Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No. I thought you had already made a poor social judgment and I was looking for a good faith explanation that would not be a personal attack. I thought that, if you are really up front about your autism like on your userpage, then you would not feel being called autistic would be an insult. I would never have speculated about it if you were not already identified and I thought it was a misjudgment before I read your userpage. RowanElder (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You obviously have never met an Autistic person because calling someone out their disability and going "but don't worry though your just Autistic so you didn't do it in bad faith or anything". You don't think that sounds patronising or rude, you just didn't like my social judgement and saw my disability as a way to excuse yourself. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"You obviously have never met an Autistic person" is wildly uncivil, ungrounded, personal attack. I am really lost here. RowanElder (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't give diffs I'm kinda new to this stuff. Thank you for putting in the effort as well. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, you are revealing a lot of personal information here about other editors that might need to be revision deleted. Please do not do that in the future. There are a lot of BLP violations in this discussion so far and assumptions about "mental illness" as well that are distressing to see from other editors. But, Akechi, I also notice that you are spending all of your talk on your User page and talk pages like Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely instead of editing to improve articles. Your own User page states I'd rather not edit Misplaced Pages and rather just discuss disputes, move requests and talk about usage of sources or claims of bias, I'm not very good at source editing which is not a good sign for an editor on this project. Jwa05002 is also spending all of their time on Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely so maybe you both could use a partial block from this talk page. Liz 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't mind that actually, also please do remove the mentions of me saying who the user who had schizophrenia was, I realise now that it's not my place to talk about. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am also looking to get into editing articles, though I do not have the time to be a full time editor. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Those comments by @RowanElder and @Jwa05002 are beyond the pale. Stating that mental illness or neurodivergence is a WP:CIR issue should never be tolerated, particularly given it's highly likely that a lot of our community are neurodiverse or mentally ill. Blocks should follow for both editors. TarnishedPath 07:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's also surreal to see the comments about autism in this discussion, you do know, I hope, that we have probably hundreds of active editors on this project that are autistic or are on the spectrum. It's not rare to be an autistic editor on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone chooses to put that fact on their User page but that doesn't erase their presence. Liz 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that the editors seem a lot more interested in arguing on talk pages, I'd suggest there's some WP:NOTHERE going on. TarnishedPath 07:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I made exactly this point that there are a lot on Misplaced Pages in one of my comments about a likely unintended consequence of @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos's incivility on their userpage, which, I quote, included "I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site." RowanElder (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The full quote is "I Autistic and pansexual (I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site.).". And clearly being Autistic upset a couple of people. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And no the lack of am is not a typo. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith! Autism did not upset me and nor did pansexuality. But "I hope I upset people who do not share my values" cannot possibly be civil discourse. RowanElder (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not my values it's my existence, being Autistic or Pansexual isn't values, it's just how I am. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

At Special:Diff/1269116979 you wrote: "I'm going to assume good faith and cite that user page: that this user is most likely a self-described autistic acting incompetently rather than in bad faith. Unfortunately, competence is required, see Misplaced Pages:Competence is required". I don't see any other interpretation for that than an act with malice directed towards a neurodiverse editor because of their neurodivergence. TarnishedPath 07:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

How about this: I was baffled by the level of incivility and I thought this would be an honorable way out of a bad look for Akechi, since I don't stigmatize the social blindness of the autistic? It was a horrible, horrible mistake but I thought that because autism is so well accepted here, including by myself, that this would be a place I could make a narrow recommendation: "hey, this matter of incivility is a social misjudgment of a kind that probably does have a good faith explanation." RowanElder (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You are assuming I can't make social judgements, that seems uncivil to me. I have just same right to make social judgements as you do. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I was not assuming that you could not. I saw what I thought was a terrible misjudgment that @Jwa05002 was struggling to see in any good faith way and suggesting a way to recover good faith, but without excusing the brazen incivility I thought I saw. RowanElder (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not say mental illness is in itself a WP:CIR issue. I said that, at times, particular mental illness will imply particular WP:CIR issues. What in the world is going on? RowanElder (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Jwa heavily implied and you didn't call him out. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've quoted exactly what you said above just now. You don't have much wiggle room there. TarnishedPath 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, autism is specifically correlated with social blindnesses. It's definitionally constitutive. That means that specifically for judgments of tone, like the one Akeshi was implicitly making, autism seemed relevant – and exculpatory! RowanElder (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not social blindnesses it's a sometimes struggle to pick up on social cues (Autistic people display a range of symptoms and some differ), also cool you do think I can't make social judgements. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your ill-founded judgments aren't doing you any favours here. You should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi and then having the good sense to shut up before someone starts a block discussion. TarnishedPath 08:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Clearly, it is not doing me favors and I am deeply deeply confused. I wouldn't know what to apologize for, at this point. RowanElder (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

For starters, for implying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors. I'm going to assume good faith that that may not have been your intent, but it's absolutely the way literally everybody else has taken it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you: I apologize completely for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by everyone else as saying that an autistic editor was somehow less competent than other editors because they were autistic. RowanElder (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(I repeated a variant of this apology below, more personally to @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, and Akechi graciously accepted the apology there. Thanks again @The Bushranger.) RowanElder (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• It seems to me that we are dealing with the intersection of two issues here. The content issue is that Jordan Neely was misbehaving severely on a subway car, and the intervention of Daniel Penny lead, quite sadly, to his death. Since Penny was acquitted, WP:BLP policy forbids Misplaced Pages editors from describing Penny as a "bad person" or implying guilt. The second issue is how editors should interact during content disputes with other editors who self-describe on their user page as autistic and having ADHD and being pansexual and an agent of chaos. Personally, I do not care about "pansexual" in the slightest because I could not care less what editors do or don't in bed or on the sofa (couch). Autistic editors and editors with ADHD are perfectly welcome to edit Misplaced Pages as long as they comply with our policies and behavioral guidelines, just as every other editor is expected to do. If I happened to state "I am not autistic" on my user page (which I don't), then I would not expect any harsher treatment for misconduct than another editor who claims to be autistic. Since all editors should be treated the same within reason, I do not see the benefit of these declarations. They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, but editors are perfectly free to make such declarations as long as they understand that other editors are likely to read them and draw inferences, stated openly or not. As for the inherent declaration in their username that the editor is The Agent Of Chaos, I find that far more troubling than the other self-declarations. The most generous interpretation is that the editor is trying too hard to be ironic and amusing, like the new hipster pizzeria in my home town that actually makes great innovative pizzas. But combined with the other self-declarations, I am confronted with legitimate questions about what this editor's goals and intentions actually are here, and I should remind the editor that actual agents of chaos get blocked pretty promptly on Misplaced Pages. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do you really think that me calling myself an Agent Of Chaos is a serious thing and not just a reference. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Like it's my name, I know there is an editor that has The Liar at the end of their username do we assume they are one. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm just stating my mental disabilities dude why is this a problem, are you gonna get mad at my userbox that says the same thing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, I think that you have dug a hole for yourself, and instead of climbing out, you are digging ever deeper. In the simplest terms, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why should anyone reading this thread be reassured that you share that goal? Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  What does that have anything to do with this discussion other than you trying excuse others of wrongdoings. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, the behaviour of all involved parties in under the microscope when you make reports here. TarnishedPath 08:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fair, I am getting into article editing, also how old is my account, what like a few months old, this is getting to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers stuff. This sounds like an excuse but I am trying to be a helpful member of the community and I'm kinda scared that I will mess things up with source editing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to stop talking now. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  For the admins' consideration, this reply is (I hope) partly because of me . So it sounds like they're willing to take advice. closhund/talk/ 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you want to be helpful, start copy editing articles or review the recent changes log looking for vandalism that needs reverting (make sure you set the filters appropriately) or anything that directly assists with the quality of articles. If you don't do at least something to help with building the project, it won't take long for others to decide that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia TarnishedPath 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks to Closhund's suggestions I actually started copy editing, it's not that scary anymore. I think I was just overwhelmed with editing massive cyclopedia. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is an interesting point - I posted a userbox saying I have ADHD, along with liking videogames and cats, as I see it as a part of me that I absolutely hated for decades until I was diagnosed recently. I posted it as a way to perhaps ask for a little patience, as I might be more prone to long posts or changing my edits after having another thought or idea (impulse control is an issue with ADHD). In my case, I intended it as an explanation, not an excuse. I still really and expect to be treated the same as anyone else.

  Nevertheless, I angered someone earlier, who weaponised my ADHD and used it to claim I was incompetent and shouldn't be here. Quite a few admins were singled out in those posts, but they specifically focused on my ADHD for an inordinate amount of time. They were also cut and pasted into other people's Talk pages.

  Whilst I'm well aware this was a malicious user and am not ashamed of my ADHD, nor will I hide it (I've done that for far too long), I'm now thinking I should remove those boxes - this is the internet, you can't tell what other people are thinking and it's easy to misunderstand others.

  Neurodivergence is a relatively-new condition (compared to depression, anxiety etc. it's only really been accepted in the past few decades), so there are a lot of misunderstandings and stigma attached to it. The prevalence of self-diagnosis and misinformation on social media doesn't help, as there are those who do want attention and/or use it as an excuse.

  I'm not sure what I'm going to do to be honest. I might remove the userboxes since they're apparently doing more harm than good. I've got to work now, but I'll decide later & just wanted to put this view forward. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  BTW Apologies if this is now off-topic, the thread was moving really fast! Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Blue Sonnet, userboxes are a personal decision you have to make. Just know that many editors don't make use of userboxes and could very well share interests and conditions with those editors who do post them. It's self-identification and that can change over time. I think the one thing you can't control is how editors who encounter a self-identification will perceive you. That fact has caused some editors to simply blank their User pages so they don't have to worry about how bits of data about themselves could lead to other editors' judging them. But other individuals want to put all of their cards on the table. It's your call and just know, you can change your mind about it any time you want. Liz 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Exactly right - I was aware of the negative perception, but someone who's looking for a reason to dislike another person will usually pick up on stuff like that first since it's an easy target. My workplace has been incredibly supportive so I've been letting my guard down, but that's not really a good idea online. Plus the userboxes were all shiny & colourful so I headed straight for them without thinking!

I don't know if I'll keep the ADHD box since it may be doing more harm than good but the cat one will stay for now, since my furry demonic familiar demands it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

With due respect, Cullen, I very strongly disagree with you when you say "They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment". This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way and arguably a failure to AGF. Since neurodivergent people are quite literally defined by their neurotypes, this is no more or less self-identifying than, for example, gender orientation declarations; both are useful for editors wishing to meet, work with, and, importantly, take advice from editors who share identities and thus can relate. I second what Liz says below.

I have no comment on this particular situation otherwise as an apology appears to have been made. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I've apologized and I meant it, and I'm trying to understand what I could have done differently at a finer grain than "never engage about any issue of mental health with respect to competence on Misplaced Pages again," which will be my safety-first default from here until I do get better understanding.

This reply confused me, and if I can ask without being seen to be hunting for chinks in armor or trying to litigate after the issue is resolved or anything like that, @Jasper Deng, was this meant to be a disagreement that They are often perceived as a claim to preferential treatment, i.e., a disagreement that that particular form of ableist prejudice exists? Or is it a disagreement with the prejudice, and thus an implicit attribution of the prejudice to @Cullen328? The latter did not seem like the most natural good faith reading of @Cullen328's comment, but the former doesn't make sense to me together with This in and of itself can be considered ableist in a way since it doesn't seem sensible that recognizing the fact of ableist prejudice would be in itself ableist (it seems the opposite, that recognizing such prejudices exist is often part of fighting such prejudices).

I've been incompetent at judging what people would interpret of my posts so far, and if I'm being incompetent in this interpretation in this reply in some blameworthy way I'll happily apologize for this as well, but I'm genuinely lost and would appreciate some more light on this if it's not a pain to provide it. RowanElder (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

To my understanding, Cullen328 seemed to be stating (without referring to specific evidence, so it's unclear what their supporting evidence for this is) that editors who see someone have a userbox that refers to their disability assume the disabled editor is looking for special treatment. I think Jasper Deng's response was suggesting the following: people who assume disabled editors are looking for special treatment because they disclosed their disability are not assuming good faith of those disabled editors and might be doing something ableist by making that assumption. For a lot of people, sharing that they're disabled is no different than sharing that they're gay or a woman, and most people would not look at someone disclosing one of those and also think the editor is looking for preferential treatment. My understanding might be wrong, but it's what I'm getting from this interaction. Does that make sense? - Purplewowies (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I do think that makes sense, insofar as I do definitely understand how the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" would be judged to be ableist, but it doesn't address my confusion. This was what I meant by "the latter" of the two interpretive alternatives in my comment just before this. My confusion was about why @Jasper Deng would have said that together with I very strongly disagree with you when I didn't see @Cullen328 necessarily endorsing the belief "they are claims to preferential treatment" in their original comment, just the belief "they are often perceived as claims for preferential treatment," which would not itself imply @Cullen328 has or agrees with that perception. RowanElder (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your prior reply, and don't worry about this one after all. I'm going to stop trying to engage here and stop trying to figure out my confusion, I've had enough. RowanElder (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 To be entirely fair, the phrase "Agent of Chaos" is fairly common in various forms of media and seems more likely to be a reference to something (like one of these, or this, or this, etc.) than an indicator that the user is acting in bad faith. CambrianCrab (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

CambrianCrab, I readily agree that the "agent of chaos" concept is used in certain genres of fiction. But we are not writing a work of fiction here. We are writing an encyclopedia and anyone who actually behaves like a agent of chaos gets blocked promptly and indefinitely. So, I do not think that it is unreasonable to express concern about an editor choosing to portray themself that way. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Would you like me to change my name if it concerns you that much Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I get like username policy and names shouldn't imply intent to troll and stuff but if we actually enforced that tons of people would have to change their usernames, once again I know a user that has The Liar at the end of their name but they aren't one. I feel like the most reasonable assumption is that my username is either a joke or a reference, as it is both. I feel like it's not assuming of good faith to think I'm an actual agent of chaos just because my username says I am. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Cullen, I think this is reaching. Just as my name is a play on words, Agent of Chaos is also a tongue in cheek username that does not strike me as indicative of the user's intent to cause harm. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree this is reaching and one thing i hate is when people try to find something completely unrelated and throw a fit about it •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Cyberwolf is fiction so… •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Mental illness can create a competency issue in pretty much any aspect of life. For example, a person can be found too mentally ill to stand trial in a court. I’m not sure why wikipedia should be an exception.

It’s unfortunate and sad for sure, but it’s simply a fact that some people are too mentally ill to be objective, reasonable, and yes even competent.

Obviously there are varying degrees of mental illness, and some are able to control it better than others. But there should definitely be a threshold where reasonable can say “this person is too mentally ill to edit” Jwa05002 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's not a judgement any complete stranger can make over the internet, including on Misplaced Pages. You could definitely call attention to disputed content or problematic conduct without making the assumption that it's connected to the disability of someone you do not know personally based on what you think you know about a specific editor, their disability, or how the latter affects the former. People can definitely come to consensuses that users cannot edit constructively without needing to declare that it's because they have a specific disability. Connecting the two like that is very likely to instead come across as (and/or be) a personal attack. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Akechi The Agent Of Chaos I apologize completely and unreservedly for saying what I did in such a way that it was taken by you (and everyone else who has said something here so far, but especially by you because your feelings were the ones hurt) as saying that you were less competent than other editors because you were autistic.

That seems important to say before any finer-grained points. I am sorry for that, completely and unreservedly. RowanElder (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept your apology Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• The bottom line is that every single editor is expected to fully follow our behavioral guidelines, no matter what they believe about their own mental health or what diagnoses that professionals have made. I was feeling quite depressed about ten day ago for reasons that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, and I have been climbing out of it without letting it affect my editing, because my Misplaced Pages editing gives me solace. If any editor is confident that they can edit productively despite a mental health challenge, then go for it. If your specific challenge impedes useful collaborative editing,then take a break until you feel better. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I will keep that in mind Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Once Jwa receives this I won't get involved. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that grace. RowanElder (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's good to see a proper apology here. I must admit that I'm so used to seeing non-apology apologies that that is what I was expecting. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've meant it from the beginning that I didn't intend to use @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos's autism as a disqualification of them. I considered the incivility disqualifying and I considered their comments about civility to show additional disqualifying incompetence of social judgment, and then I intended to highlight their self-identified autism as a possible way of reconciling the incivility and incompetence with good faith to cool and stop the uncivil running conflict with @Jwa05002 (who I thought was also responsible for incivility and making poor judgment calls, such as moving from the specific/local frustration about incompetence and incivility (actually blameworthy) to general/global frustration with neurodivergence (not blameworthy)).

  This I now see was naive and strongly against community norms, in particular viewed as unacceptably patronizing and ableist in itself, and so I'm not going to do that again here and I do find it easy to make a complete and genuine apology for having broken those norms.

  In my friendships and collaborations with autistic people in offline life, I will continue to do what has made my friendships and collaborations with them work so far. This sometimes does include very direct conversation about when to step away from fights when someone is missing social cues, but in my context it is rarely blamably patronizing or ableist to do so since there's an already strong expectation of respect for neurodivergence (and in the rare cases it is blamably patronizing or ableist, I also listen to that and stop as quickly as possible, like I am here). One of my main takeaways here is that on Misplaced Pages, the general patterns of unwanted but de facto incivility mean that there is not strong expectation that people do already respect the neurodivergent, in fact the reverse: a pretty strong expectation that communication that could be disrespect for the neurodivergent is disrespect for the neurodivergent. That seems true (that too many people don't respect neurodivergence) and important, and insofar as I wasn't already seeing it, it was because I was tripping over the "assume good faith" policy trying not to assume others were prejudiced against the neurodivergent and/or disrespecting the neurodivergent (since that seemed like it would be assuming bad faith).

  I don't yet understand how to reconcile "assume good faith" and "proactively defend people from systemic prejudices" very well. Off of Misplaced Pages I just don't assume good faith! It's something I think a lot of contemporary American political discourse has been choking on, and I think it'll be worth my time to continue thinking about it with this additional information from this experience. RowanElder (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hey to be honest this is a model example on how to apologize on and explain your behavior and how you want to improve here. This is what we need more of. I read through your apology several times and can’t detect bad faith from you. You’ve done well and I’ll admit working with neurodivergent individuals can be/will be challenging w/o pretty much whole life experience. I’ve made mistakes. We all will. :3 •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, this means a lot. I was worried it was just being taken as more bad faith when I wasn't getting other replies earlier. I've had a terrible time here and I need a break. RowanElder (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  No you did great •Cyberwolf•talk? 23:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Really, I do mean it. Still, on my own terms I don't feel at all good and I should take some time away. RowanElder (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  wikipedians who are in this big of ani and are the subjects, should take a big break this is the most scary stressful and some what notorious page •Cyberwolf•talk? 00:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

While I can't comment on @RowanElder as I've not interacted with them, I will note that I already reported @Jwa05002 concerning (in part) some of these issues about a month ago. People wanting to judge any misbehavior, with full context, may want to read the talk page discussion where I engaged with them on it, as well as the aforementioned report itself, which has specific diffs (all of this was when my username was LaughingManiac).

For full disclosure, since I was fairly heavily involved at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely and promised to disengage to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING, I'll attempt to refrain from getting too deep into this particular discussion. It also bears mentioning that I ended up retracting the report myself, as can be seen above. Part of it was based on my own experience as a mentally ill person and expectations concerning how the topic be handled, and I found that Jwa05002 made a valid point that personal experience cannot dictate neutral Misplaced Pages editing, something which seemed supported by Misplaced Pages's second pillar, specifically the last sentence. So, I closed the report (with the - I assumed - mutual understanding that there would be no more aspersions on Jwa05002's part), and disengaged.

I can say that my personal view of this subject is that there were problematic undertones both in how Jordan Neely's mental illness had been weaponized by Penny's defense, as well as in how it was being discussed on the talk page. I found Jwa05002's own mentions and utilization of the topic very offensive, to me personally, which is (in part) why I disengaged, since because I was personally affected in this case, I felt it would be difficult for me to participate neutrally. On a semi-related point, I do feel that Misplaced Pages in general would benefit from stricter guidelines concerning "personal experiences" beyond merely dismissing them, given that the manner in which some of the content in cases like these is treated, as well as the overt and rampant generalizations or prejudiced discourse against already vulnerable populations, may well discourage marginalized editors from contributing. But, this is ultimately a different topic that would be better suited for the village pump.

I will also mention, however, that it'd be rather disappointing in my view if a comment like this one (which to me reads like a personal attack, never even mind that the notion that "severely mentally ill people" shouldn't be allowed to participate on Misplaced Pages is deeply troubling to me) is allowed to stand.

EDIT: For fuller disclosure, I will note that I was pinged to this discussion by Akechi mentioning me, in diffs like this one. I'm unsure whether this counts as CANVASSING? Hopefully not - my intent here is merely to provide context concerning a dispute in which I was originally involved in, which seems relevant, if not identical, to this one in my eyes. NewBorders (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I know little about the Jordan Neely case, and have not investigated it in particular, but have to give a few words about Misplaced Pages editing by people who are mentally ill or neurodivergent. I have a mental illess (I don't know if it's severe enough for Jwa05002, but I lost about half my working life because of it), and, largely through that, I know plenty of people with autism, ADHD and schizophrenia. I don't choose to display my mental status on my user page, but reveal it when relevant. I just checked and a have made nearly 49,000 edits since 2007. I don't think anyone has spotted my mental condition in all that time, because I take reponsibility for my editing and do not edit when I'm not up to it. If all the people with a mental illess or neurodivergence left Misplaced Pages it would be a much poorer place, and might not even exist. Some people with those conditions are very good editors, and some are not so good, just like "normal" people. I hope we can accept such people just as we can accept people of different genders, nationalities, sexual preferences etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There are absolutely varying degrees of mental illness and it wasn’t my intention to imply anyone who suffers from a mental illness should not edit Misplaced Pages pages.

in this case, my comment was directed at one specific editor.

its unfortunate for sure, but some people simply aren’t capable of being objective and reasonable enough to edit pages.

this admin page is full of examples of users being blocked from editing because they simply aren’t able to handle the responsibility that comes with it. Jwa05002 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Have I displayed any of that because you've kinda been urging me to stop being on the talk page for a while because of my extreme bias, which I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. This just seems like you found a more reasonable way to try and get me to stop editing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jwa05002, rather than defending your comments on the article's talk page you should be offering an unreserved apology to Akechi. TarnishedPath 02:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I went back and looked through that entire discussion (about schizophrenia) and I see that there were 2 different editors besides me during the conversation.

so I do apologize for conflating the two of you (Akechi and whoever the other editor was)

I honestly did not realize Akechi was not the editor who volunteered they had a schizophrenia diagnosis. That’s for sure my mistake. Akechi, I apologize for implying you’d been diagnosed with a mental illness. Jwa05002 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Cool, do you also wanna apologise for the comments you made about severely mentally ill people, as well as just assuming I was because of my Autism. You could also just apologise generally to the user with schizophrenia they should see it, because honestly it's kind of disgusting to imply someone isn't competent because of their disabilities. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles.

Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles. Jwa05002 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not you're decision to make and mental illnesses can vary in condition, we judge people's actions not how they were born. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Jwa05002, I know many people with schizophrenia who would be perfectly capable of writing Misplaced Pages articles. We block/ban people because of what they do on Misplaced Pages, not because of whether they happen to have a broken leg, cancer or schizophrenia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Just stating one more time that I never agreed with this position. RowanElder (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just in case anyone finds it meaningful I'll reaffirm my commitment to these principles as well. I specifically avoided "severe enough" language because I don't think any "overall amount" would be relevant. I spoke about impacts on specific, relevant domains. Someone can be dealing with crippling catatonic panic attacks or having outright hallucinations offline and also still be participating in Misplaced Pages constructively and valuably when they're up for it. All my evidence is that both have in fact happened in real cases, constructively and for the best. My primary principle here was that editors should not contribute where they are disruptively incompetent for any reason, with mental illness simply not a special reason (and similarly for forms of neurodivergence I don't actually like to conflate with flat "mental illness", such as many forms of autism spectrum conditions). RowanElder (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I just came across this and i would like to say excuse my language what the fuck is this behavior. The correlations in the talk page are absolutely ridiculous and are all blatant attacks. I’m ignoring if akechi is right or wrong that doesn’t matter(to me). These attacks are not only focused on akechi but all neurodivergent contributors to Misplaced Pages. It’s disheartening that this happens. What does schizophrenia have to do with a users ability to edit. This place is for everyone who wants to contribute (within policy of course). those who degrade users because of who they are, they are trying to push people who they deem not to be “normal”. The fucking disrespect makes my blood boil. As someone who made a mistake which was directly related to my mental problems. If i was attacked for That behavior you bet I wouldn’t have held back my anger as much as akechi did. As a neurodivergent person and one who takes care of other neurodivergents. These people are more than helpful to the Misplaced Pages they all have certain content hyperfixations planes, military, cars, racing, boats you name it. Everyone has a purpose here. Shame on those who think otherwise •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Also if you would like @Jwa05002 please explain why you think schizophrenia prohibits users from being competent.
In my experience with a schizophrenic friend most of his schizophrenia is just seeing scary things. He is smart he does well in school. Tell me why he couldn’t contribute •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Block proposal - Jwa05002

I have Indefinitely blocked Jwa05002 per consensus here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

I propose an indef block for Jwa05002 as consequence of their statements at Special:Diff/1269119175 where they wrote

Agreed. @Akechi The Agent of Chaos self admittedly (in these discussions) suffers from schizophrenia. I have the deepest sympathy for anybody with mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean severely mentally ill people should be editing Misplaced Pages articles. It’s exactly as you stated, competence is required. But….i guess this is what Misplaced Pages has devolved into. It’s sad really"

and then at Special:Diff/1269339244 where they just wrote

I don’t. I stand by my statement that “severely mentally ill” people shouldn’t make edits to Misplaced Pages articles. Schizophrenia is a “severe mental illness” (don’t take my word for it, check out the Misplaced Pages article about it). That’s tragic and sad for sure, but still in my opinion, people suffering from that type of severe mental illness aren’t competent to edit Misplaced Pages articles.

All of the editors contributions, bar one which was an edit they shouldn't have been making per WP:ARBECR, are at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and it therefore appears that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. TarnishedPath 05:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if I can place any votes because of my involvement but @Jwa05002 has in my opinion been trying to scare some user away from comment on Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, including me where they said (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#c-Jwa05002-20250101224800-Akechi_The_Agent_Of_Chaos-20241230034200)

"Based on this comment and many others I’ve seen you make here, you are far too personally biased (for whatever reason) to be making edits to this Misplaced Pages article. You are simply unable to be objective about it. Misplaced Pages should not exist as a forum for editors to grind their personal axes." in what could be seen as an attempt to scare me away from things. I don't know what Jwa was talking about because if you look at my comments on the talk page it was mostly trying to explain WP:killing of to people. The personal bias I can only assume was my disagreeing with them on the move request, as that is all I can think of. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as mover. I think Jwa's comments speak for themselves. TarnishedPath 11:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support if clue is not promptly obtained. That's not an acceptable statement to make against your fellow editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support This is entirely inappropriate and disruptive comportment. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support per my comment above •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Jwa's statement is unconscionably biased against editors with psychiatric issues, and such discrimination should not be tolerated. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Insinuating an editor has a serious mental illness is something that is, and should be, an immediate indefinite block at minimum. Attempting to induce a chilling effect with veiled threats is also something that is best responded to with a summary indef. I don't see any reason why Jwa is still unblocked while this ban discussion is ongoing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 00:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - what ever happened to discussing Content not the Contributor(s)? I'm with Jéské Couriano, why is Jwa still unblocked?--Kansas Bear 00:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly support - I'm still getting a weird feeling to the rest of the discussion unrelated to Jwa, but Jwa's interactions feel very clear cut, particularly considering they basically doubled down when they started discussing here at ANI. Feels like obvious grounds for a block and/or CBAN. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Query is this proposing an indefinite block (as the section header says) or a community ban (as the text says)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:CBAN, Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community". So wouldn't it be "both"? EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger, I've updated the wording to specify an indef block. But as ER states above the result would be the same. TarnishedPath 02:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Query Should we let Jwa know that there is a indef block proposal, like on his talk page, it seems we haven't given him any heads up and I think we probably should. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I just left a message on his talk page just giving him a heads up. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You already let them know they were being discussed here at the very start of this conversation. TarnishedPath 09:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support unless they unequivocally recant this view, because at the end of the day competence is not decided just by what neurotype one is. I should note that if, as it currently seems, the user has left the project, this is going to be mostly an academic exercise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah I did notice they just stop responding to anything, it seems they had a mission and just decided nope out I guess. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Addition- policy revival and reform

wikipedia:Discrimination (failed proposal) is a proposal that failed in 2009 and I have seen too much of this happening which just goes underwhelmingly to Wp:personal attacks. But these aren’t personal only the discrimination against one person is discrimination against the users of Misplaced Pages who were basically attacked. I think its needed as the everyday change of politics in the us. The draft will be remade of course. This is just my test the waters on potential proposals which I would like to make. •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:VPP would be the place for future policy proposals, but we already have precedent with treating discriminatory speech (aka misgendering and racial slurs) as WP:DISRUPTIVE. Users have been blocked on that basis over the last few years, wouldn't hurt to codify it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If you get the ball rolling at VPP I imagine you'd find a lot of people who would like to improve Misplaced Pages's systematic handling of discriminatory actions. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ll start to draft a thing for village pump tonight thanks •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

user:Cyberwolf/discriminationpropdraft Been working on this dis regard my horrible format its word vomit •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That is what made my blood boil with these interactions that they weren't just personal attacks but descrimination against a whole class of Misplaced Pages editors. I think policy here would be most welcome. Please ping me when you put up a proposal. TarnishedPath 23:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Special:PermanentLink/1269831022#A discrimination policy Here •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk page misuse (Jwa05002)

Talk-page access yanked by Moneytrees. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

This says it all. Talk page access needs to be yanked.

It's sad though that they misread "<disorder> is characterized by <x, y, z, ...>" as "everyone with <disorder> has all of <x, y, z...> to the point that it makes them incompetent to edit". --Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Moneytrees, please see above comment by Jasper. TarnishedPath 05:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh brother…. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Extended confirmed gaming by Sairamb1407

Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Sairamb1407 has made 299 dummy edits to their user-space and many non substantial edits to other articles and have gamed their way into the extended confirmed user group. in order to edit the EC protected Republic TV , consider revoking their ECR until they make 500 legitimate edits. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I note that this editor made their 502nd edit to an extended confirmed protected article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have revoked their EC permission. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Their talk page is full of warnings saying they may be blocked without further warning if they do some vandalism again. That user has only been here for a month... Just FYI. Nakonana (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user as a sock. The other account has a thread here as well (lower down).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Rahulbasuzoom not being here and potentially other issues

SOCK BLOCKS Socks tossed in the dryer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Reporting on Rahulbasuzoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Almost their entire editing history consists of overlinking. They have been warned for this but still continue with this behavior even today by adding wikilinks to countries, words like "musician", more countries while making one edit per country, rivers where there's already a wikilink in the preceding sentence, the "British Empire" on a series that takes place in contemporary UK? etc.

I think the user is trying to get to extended-confirmed status for Indian topics by gaming the system. Aside from the editing pattern, my suspicion is based on the fact that they made an edit request in that direction (if I accidentally got the wrong diff here, then the next diff should be the right one). When seeing that edit request, I also noticed another one on that talk page by Sairamb1407 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who recently got their extended-confirmed status revoked for gaming the system). I had undone several cases of Rahulbasuzoom's overlinking, so I saw the history of some of the pages they edited and that's why Sairamb1407's username struck me as familiar because those two editors appear to have quite the overlap in editing interests and editing patterns, particularly on Republic TV (where they made their edit requests) and the sub-channels of Republic TV. Examples: Republic Kannada, Republic Bangla, Republic Bharat. I suspect an undisclosed COI for both users, if not a case of meat puppetry or sock puppetry. Some of their edits have been removed for being puff pieces. (Sorry I didn't think of saving a diff for that and it's tricky to get one after I started writing this report, because I'm on mobile.)

This is my first report, sorry if made any mistakes. Nakonana (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are examples of unsourced puff pieces added by Rahulbasuzoom for your convenience:. Nakonana (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And here are diffs for Sairamb1407's adding of puff pieces to the same article: . Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Both accounts are now blocked as socks of each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 15 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)

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)

Stalking from @Iruka13

• Iruka13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a continuation of various discussions happening on the Talk page of the user Iruka13.

I have been feeling harassed and stalked by this user for months now, figuring it was only me. Except, as is evidenced from that user's talk page, it ISN'T only me. As well as my post, @Netherzone has laid out their own harassment. Bear in mind both of our posts come AFTER the user was already banned for a week by @Star Mississippi for incivility to a different person entirely. I don't believe it's only us.

As laid out: one of my photos was tagged by @Iruka13 for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file. Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons. The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead it's a drip-drip-drip. As an example, this file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.

If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream of harassment. They never engage civilly, never explain, never offer any reasoning. Again, from the other comments on the user's Talk page, this practice of stalking, bullying, and condescension is seemingly not a one-off. I don't understand how there can be so much drama on a single six-week period of one person's Talk page. Especially when, apparently, the user has already been banned from Commons for similar destructive behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterspeterson (talk • contribs) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Just dropping a link to my discussion with Iruka here. My block was less about whether they were technically correct, but their complete unwillingness and inability to edit in a collaborative environment despite a multitude of warnings. I have not followed up with further sanctions as at least one admin disagreed, and I haven't had the on wiki time to moderate this. My POV there and here is that being right isn't sufficient, and Iruka13 has to learn to play well with others if he's going to edit here. I am not sure whether this is a language barrier, but they've been told a number of times that their conduct is problematic. Star Mississippi 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm also going to add from what I've seen at the deletion discussions (they've not targeted any of mine; I exclusively deal in copyleft media on Commons) that Iruka13 is frequently and obviously meritless in their nominations. A huge portion of them are very obviously spurious in a way that's comparable to Gish gallop and Brandolini's law, where the amount of energy required to nominate them is immensely lower than the amount required to refute them. I'm genuinely baffled that they've been getting away with this. If they were basically always correct and just being – pardon my French – an insufferable jackass about it, that would be one thing. It's another thing entirely, though, to take a birdshot approach to deletion noms knowing there will be zero repurcussions for whichever spuriously nominated ones survive the discussion because WP:AGF. It's literally just a technique aimed at exhausting the other party, and this bizarre edge case they're creating has made me think that we might actually need some sort of limit on the number of noms possible in a given time period. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide the redlink to the "talk page of a deleted file" where you said that the harassment "largely" occurred? Administrators can view the content of a deleted page. :) MolecularPilot 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to - but I don't know how to find a page that was deleted so long ago. I think it would have been around October 2024? Is there a way I can search this out? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I am reproducing the comment from File talk:Kraven-comparison.jpg here:

Do you even know what is significant for an article and what is not? Where in authoritative sources is this distinction mentioned? Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right? And let's be simpler, ok? — Ирука 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes! That's the comment. The "demolish everything you wrote" bit.

The same user has now been following me around for months. This is exactly the reason other users like @Netherzone feel unsafe. How is this allowed to go on? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That conduct probably would have merited a temporary block in November, but I'm not going to block him based on that now without more evidence that it's part of a pattern. Regarding the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons, could you please provide diffs (perhaps to talk page notices that you got) of spurious deletion nominations? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's the process of one after the other, after the other.

If there were genuine issues with images, why didn't Iruka tag them all back then? Instead, it's been a drip-drip-drip all the way up until today. This is why I feel harassed. The tagging isn't on new images.

As an example, this file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.

If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that stuff like that lead to Star Missicipi's 1 week block on the 10th of December. Has there been any conduct made you feel uncomfortable since their block expired, beyond nominating your images for deletion (indicating they might be watching which images you make) and them being deleted? :) MolecularPilot 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Jinx voorts, beat me too it! Had an edit conflict there (but forgot to add (edit conflict))! :) MolecularPilot 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Yes. This file was tagged last week and deleted today. This was an image used on a page relating to art books, for which the primary feature is the size of the book. There was a regular sized book on top of the larger one showing this size. That's the point of the page. There are book covers all over this site - and I would argue this file had little difference to any of them. I believe it had the correct meta data.

If the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's that steady stream.

Basically, why would they suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months, on a whim? Peterspeterson (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

My guess would be that the user was looking through your file creations (which is not sanctionable conduct by itself) as they had found you to be, in their opinion, a creator of fair use files that may not meet our guidelines for free-use content and was seeing if there were any others to tag for deletion. If you don't agree with decision of the admin who chose to accept the CSD nom and delete the file, you can submit an appeal to WP:DRV. I'm not entirely sure what you want to be done here? Has there been any re-occurance of subpar communication like the above since the 17th of December? MolecularPilot 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

But that's exactly my point. All those files were already on Misplaced Pages at that previous time. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged in one go.

Instead, it's tag a file, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another, wait 2-3 weeks, tag another. And repeat.

But why would anyone keep returning to those old images, from a single user, over and over and over?

That's why I feel harassed. Especially because - as with the image linked above - I don't believe there's an issue.

Plus, as pointed out by @TheTechnician27, tahere have been more than 150 image deletion nominations in the last two weeks alone. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Three* but nonetheless correct. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)e

Voorts, you just beat me to it--thanks. But let me add that Peterson doesn't look good either. What Iruka was responding to was this, " There's no point in people drive-bying these pages with that "needs image" tag if, when somebody tries to do something about it, a person *with zero knowledge of the subject matter* doesn't bother to do any reading before rejecting. This whole process is ridiculous." Drmies (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've undeleted that file talk page so non-admin watchers can see the whole exchange in context. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm reading over a bunch of material, including their talk page. It's clear to me (and I think User:Pppery agrees) that many of their deletion nominations are correct. On the other hand, the way in which they go about things is deemed problematic by plenty of others, and I wonder if User:Bagumba, User:Zanahary, User:TheTechnician27, and User:Kingsif have any additional insight. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that matched my understanding, including them being usually (but by no means always) right on the merits but problematic in how they went about it. I don't really have the energy to spent more time analyzing this than I already have - the other admins watching this page can do what needs to be done and I don't think any further comments from me would be helpful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Their nomination of File:Diab al-Mashi.png was not correct. The file had a nominally large pixel size, but was very compressed. When I removed their tag for the image to be shrunk, they nominated it for speedy deletion, which makes no sense and is clearly retaliatory. They tagged it as being an entire work uploaded when an excerpt would do, when they knew it was a single compressed frame from a 44 minute film. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that their tagging of the file for speedy deletion was totally incorrect and made no sense given the size of the original file that was uploaded; the close to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 12#File:Diab al-Mashi.png and the closing administrator's removal of the {{Non-free no reduce}} template you added to the file's page and the closing administrator's re-adding of the the {{Non-free reduce}} template originally added by Iruka13. For reference, Voorts, who's an administrator, did !vote delete in the FFD, but for a different reason; the file ultimately was kept, but it was reduced. You disagreed with the tagging of the file for reduction by Iruka13 but, for some reason, don't seem to have an issue with the closing administrator who did exactly the same thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I forgot about that discussion. I don't think it makes me involved here, but I'm not planning on taking action at this point anyways. If any evidence of a continuing problem had been presented, as I've asked numerous times, I would have blocked, but the allegations of stalking are based on very thin evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, you don’t know what I don’t have an issue with. I still think there was no reason for the bot reduction of the file. The relevance of the reduction tagging is in the fact that “this file should be kept and altered” cannot lead to “this file should be deleted” without some major change in opinion, which Iruka never explained—hence my belief that it was just a lashing-out, as I believe is evidenced by the fact that their tag alleging that the file interferes with the market role of the original work and that the still is a complete work from which an excerpt could be taken instead was completely false and never explained—still never explained, actually. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Four of your uploads (the one discussed above, File:True Panther logo.png, File:Teniky inner sandstone wall 1940-41.jpg and File:Déluge au Pays du Baas poster.jpeg) were all uploaded at sizes considered big enough to be tagged by a bot for reduction almost within a day of being uploaded. The file discussed here was tagged by a bot here, but you removed the tag here and added a "Non-free no reduce" template here; perhaps you thought that resolved things. Iruka13 removed the "Non-free free no reduce" template here asking for a reason, and you re-added it here. I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again and led to accusations of edit warring. The file was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3b, each of which are reasons related to WP:NFCC. You then started the discussion about the file, first on its talk page and then at FFD, and Iruka did respond on both pages. None of the above seems to seems (at least to me) to clearly indicate any type of retaliaton against you by Iruka13; rather, it seems like something not too uncommon when it comes to disagreements over non-free files, and it also seems to have been resolved as such. If you can demonstrate that Iruka13 did similar things with respect to your other file uploads or uploads by others, then that might indicate a pattern of some kind; their interaction with you, however, seems to have been civil and seems to have ended with the FFD. Finally, the "Criterion 3b, because an entire work is being used when a portion or a reduced-size copy would suffice" used in the {{di-fails NFCC}} template is boilerplate text added when a template's |3b= parameter is set as |3b=yes; so, that's the default option when using that template. Personally, I might've just skipped that template and gone to FFD instead, but different strokes for different folks, and, once again, I don't see tagging the file for speedy deletion as being a retaliatory act. Iruka13 can't delete files and any files they tag for speedy deletion are going to be ultimately reviewed by an administrator, and it's possible that the file would've ended up at FFD based on that review. If you've got issues with the bot tagging the file for reduction, the bot operator is probably the best person to express them to. Similarly, if you feel the FFD close was incorrect, you can follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

> I'm guessing Iruka13 tagged the file because they felt re-adding the "Non-free reduce" template would've just been reverted again

And therein lies the point because you shouldn’t have to guess. Iruka could actually engage with editors on a polite, peer-to-peer, basis.

Instead, there is no engagement. It’s tag, move on; tag, move on - dozens of times a day, every day. And should anyone dare engage, they get wikilawyered, or threats such as:

> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote

All from a user who, by their own admission, has multiple bans for harassment. Which is, at least from my standing, why I and others feel bullied and harassed. After all it is someone who’ll openly tell you that’s how they behave, knowing full well they get welcomed back to do it again. Peterspeterson (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot nominate a file for deletion because you think your tag is going to be removed. That is not a deletion rationale. I don’t care about establishing a pattern of behavior for this user—I’m just saying that they tagged a file for deletion because they got annoyed that their NFR tag got reverted, and that is a problem. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You can, however, nominate or tag a non-free file for deletion if you feel it fails to meet allone of the ten non-free content use criteria. Iruka13 listed two criteria that they felt the non-free use failed; you disagreed with their assessment and the file ended up being discussed at FFD. That's a fairly common occurrence when it comes to disagreements over non-free use, and doesn't necessarily mean anyone was annoyed or trying to retaliate. The fact that the non-free file was kept but also reduced, also doesn't mean they were totally incorrect in their assessment, at least with respect to NFCC#3b. You posted above that I don't know what you have an issue with, yet you're quick to assume that Iruka13's tagging of the file just had to be done to get back at you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC); post edited. -- 03:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Peterspeterson & @TheTechnician27: If I am going to take action, I need to see a post-block pattern of conduct. Please provide some form of evidence, such as diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

My most recent issues relate to the file I linked above - here. This was tagged last week and deleted today.

Again, if the file was correctly deleted, then OK. Except this file has been on the site for months. It wasn't new. The user could've tagged it months ago when tagging other files of mine. Instead, it's the fifth or sixth(?) that's been tagged and deleted since that first one. Each a week or three apart.

Of course I feel stalked. None of these images are new. They could've all been tagged at the time.

Instead, it's drip-drip-drip.

On that one linked above, why would Iruka suddenly decide to look at an image that had been up for months on a whim? Unless it's because they're stalking. It's the same behaviour described by @Netherzone Peterspeterson (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page state: Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem (emphasis in original). I am not going to block someone without evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no way I could possibly fulfil what you ask.

The point is that instead of tagging multiple files for deletion in one go, the same user has tagged image files of mine one after the other. Tag for deletion, wait 2-3 weeks, tag, wait 2-3 weeks, tag.

I can't see the files *because they've been deleted*. What am I supposed to link you to?

Even if all the deletions were correct - and I'm not convinced that's true - how is this a legitimate way to act?

The harassment is that all these files were live when the first tag was made. Instead of highlighting any issues at the time, Iruka has been following me around the site for months. I'm not the only person saying this. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page history, you received two deletion notifications on 12 November 2024 (one for an image that you uploaded that same date, and one for an image that you uploaded a few weeks prior), one on 22 November 2024 for the image you uploaded 12 November, one on 3 December 2024 for an image you uploaded in October, and one on 6 January for an image you uploaded in October.The 22 November nomination makes sense in context because it was originally nominated for lacking an adequate license per F4 on 12 November, which was remedied, and then Iruka came back ten days later to nominate it for lacking contextual significance. That leaves the nominations on 3 December and 6 January. Two nominations one month apart is not adequate evidence of stalking, in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I also note your responses to two of those notifications (both for files that were deleted):

• Special:GoToComment/c-Peterspeterson-20241112221900-Iruka13-20241112220600
• Special:GoToComment/c-Peterspeterson-20241203174700-Iruka13-20241203131300

voorts (talk/contributions) 04:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

OK @Voorts & @TheTechnician27- I think I have been able to find some sort of timeline to illustrate what I'm saying.

On 12 Nov, File:Kraven-comparison.jpg was nominated for deletion. I'd uploaded in the days before, so OK. Fair enough. I'm still not convinced by the merits of this deletion in regards to the point of the page and the image - but OK.

On 22 Nov, File:AvXduo.jpeg was nominated.

On 3 Dec File:Daredevilcomparison.jpeg was nominated.

On 6 Jan File:Galleryvprem.jpeg was nominated. This is the most dubious of all.

These four images were all there at the time of the first nomination. If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once.

Instead, it's four over two months - which comes directly after the message:

> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote

Which is exactly what's happening. Spaced out, spurious nominations.

Why would a user suddenly return to look at a different user's work, weeks apart, unless they're stalking?

And, if it was only me, then maybe I'd put it down to paranoia. Except the user's Talk page has at least one other user saying a very similar thing.

I can't see the comments you've linked to btw - but believe it or not, when someone says

> Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote

and then starts doing it, it does tend to lead to incivility. Peterspeterson (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to add, by the user's own admission in 2023, they have

> 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects

Link: User talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100

That's in *their own words*. Peterspeterson (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If there was genuinely an issue, they could have all been tagged at once. There's no rule that requires an editor to go through another editor's contributions and decide whether to nominate them for deletion all at once. There are also innocent explanations, such as not wanting to overwhelm someone with a dozen nominations all at once or not having the time.Regarding Netherzone's claim of stalking, Iruka's "laboratory" appears to be a place where they keep notes on files they intend to renominate for deletion at a later date.I am also well aware of the history of Iruka's blocks, but blocks can't be used to punish people for sins of the past. I see no evidence of stalking here and I won't be taking action. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, so when another old file gets tagged with little justification in 2-3 weeks, can I message you again? What about 2-3 weeks after that?

I don't even know how I'm supposed to appeal / counteract the tag-tag-tag behaviour. I can't see any justification for the deletion of today's file and it's not as if Iruka ever gives any reason. Peterspeterson (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Iruka has provided reasons consistent with policies, guidelines, and practice. For example, File:Galleryvprem.jpeg was tagged with {{di-fails NFCC|date=6 January 2025|1=yes|8=yes}}. I've reviewed the fair use rationale that you provided and I believe that the file was properly deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Does 170 image deletion noms since Christmas count as "a pattern of conduct"? Because I see this as effectively a Gish gallop where it's functionally impossible for most editors to meaningfully evaluate the merits of each one. Since non-free media has to meet a substantially higher standard for 'Keep' than for 'Delete', this means that 'Keep' voters need to take substantially more time per nom than the 'Delete' ones, and creating such a glut of noms severely and unfairly tips the balance in favor of a 'Delete' vote on average. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the ask, because this made me realize that I was incorrect about the original figure. It's actually 210 since Christmas, or a bit over 10 per day. Edit history and then Ctrl+F "up for deletion" and "tagging for deletion". 170 noms; 40 CSDs. I want to clarify I've been absent from this since the original block, but this has to be absurd to keep up with for anyone at the discussions trying to argue to in good faith to preserve these images. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

How many were declined by patrolling admins? How many were no permission tags where permissions were then added? An admin cannot block someone without evidence and I'm not going to dig through Iruka's contributions to look for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately I haven't been keeping up with the situation on a per-nom basis, and by nature of them consistently putting up over 1000 edits a month, I'm not going to be going through them except for macro-scale patterns. I was brought here for my perspective, and this is it: that Iruka is abusing the system by making an unprecedented amount of noms with little regard for merit (the noms I witnessed were immediately pre-block, thus as you said not qualifying here for post-block behavior) in order to make dubious noms on average more successful solely because they can't have as much individual time dedicated to them. It's a very obvious tactic, and I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. I don't intend to go beyond what I was brought here to do for right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a very obvious tactic, I'm equal parts perplexed that there's no protection against this and yet unsurprised because there's likely never been anyone this unnaturally zealous to warrant it. Please do comment on other editors' motives without evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Between more than one experienced editor accusing Iruka of stalking them, their "let someone else sort it out" attitude toward obvious, consequential mistakes they make, their argumentative behavior, their gross power-tripping attitude ("Do you understand that I can demolish everything you wrote and I will be right?" (also note the wikilawyering going on in that comment)), their ridiculous noms (including arguments like "just use a 3D model bro" or "a free alternative can reasonably exist because you can just get a basketball backboard and break it for an image bro" or "just offer to pay them money to put it under a free license it bro"; all pre-block, so I'm not bothering to dig it up), the absurd frequency of noms they create, and their indefinite block on Commons, all I'll say is that I assume good faith until an editor flushes that down the toilet. With that, I'm done here unless someone has a specific question for me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"I have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects."

Kinda sounds like maybe this user does harass people, considering that's what they wrote *on their own page*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2023#c-Iruka13-20230927154300-Marchjuly-20230927005100 Peterspeterson (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The stuff in this thread is basically de rigueur for this user: my past experiences with Iruka13 and file deletion have consisted of extremely bizarre wikilawyering, to the point where I felt like it bordered on deliberate trolling. I do not understand why this editor is permitted to waste so much of people's time with obviously vexatious nominations. jp×g🗯️ 06:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the key element here is if the nominations were "obviously vexatious", I mean the ones that sparked this ANI were all accepted by the deleting admin, and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama. I wonder if there's a tool on toolforge or smth to calculate accepted vs denied CSDs/FfD noms which may paint a better picture, but from a spot check I just did of both CSD and FfD this are mostly either accepted by the deleting admin or the raised issues are resolved. MolecularPilot 07:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To my understanding this ANI is mainly about a) the volume of CSDs and FfDs and b) the user's laboratory. I don't think anyone is arguing that the nominations were actually meritless or vexatious, and those who said they were "wrong" may want to take that up with the deleting admin or WP:DRV because it's not like this user is mass-tagging and it's being declined... most of the time issues are resolved or the admin agrees and speedily deletes/the FfD closes as delete. MolecularPilot 07:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

> and were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama

You’ve guessed that this is their motivation - and your guess is equally as valid as my assertion that this is stalking.

In fact, much of various admins’ attempts at justification throughout this thread is guesswork - all of which has had to occur because Iruka does not engage with other users on a polite peer-to-peer basis. There is no “paper trail” to say “this is what they actually meant”. As has been evidenced and pointed out by multiple editors. Peterspeterson (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If you continue to assert this is stalking with no evidence, I will block you for personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will simply ask you how do you know tags

> were done 3 weeks apart to prevent looks of batch deleting a single user's pictures but still caused drama

Have you guessed? Or has Iruka stated this anywhere? Peterspeterson (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

All of the files that he tagged that you uploaded were deleted. There is no rule that prohibits someone from nominating files for deletion spaced apart. At this point, it just feels like you're seeking revenge for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You're guessing my intention the same way you're guessing Iruka's.

"Revenge" isn't my intention at all. Revenge for what? If the files were legitimately deleted, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to me.

However, the spacing of the reports felt - and feel - like harassment. (I'm being clear that it *felt* like harassment because I don't want to be banned for what you assert are personal attacks).

Even with that *feeling*, I would have moved on were it not for the fact that other people were reporting very similar things on the user's Talk page. And then, with a small amount of checking, it seems that Iruka has admitted to harassing other users at various points in the past. And, from what others have said, Iruka has already been banned on multiple occasions, from multiple places, for precisely that. (I don't actually know if this is true).

So my *feeling* of being harassed was in fact legitimised by others feeling the same - and apparent past behaviour. Hence this.

On the files being deleted, for that specific one here, it was the first time I'd experienced this sort of tagging. I didn't really know what to do with it.

The info page said to leave an explanation on the Talk page - which I tried to do.

I was then told:

> I can demolish everything you wrote

along with what I now know is 'wikilawyering'. You can see how I reacted:

> Who goes onto a page and says "I can demolish everything you wrote" and then cries about bad faith?!

Because from the info page, I assumed that when an admin came to look at that file to decide upon deletion, they would see that remark and do something with it. I didn't even know this ANI process existed then.

Except nothing was done. The admin either read Iruka's "demolish" response and decided it was acceptable, or didn't read it.

And, ever since then, Iruka has continued to target me at regular intervals, leaving me unsure what - if anything - to do.

You can guess that the targeting is to "prevent looks of batch deleting" - but it's still a guess. Iruka could've engaged civilly, in the same way they could with any other user who has reported a problem.

In the same way they could be on this thread right now explaining what's actually going on. If they did that, neither you or I would have to guess. Peterspeterson (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Please forgive the length of this. This discussion has gone a bit sideways, the issue is not whether Iruka13 is “correct” or not in their file tagging and file deletions, the problem is that their behavior is disturbing and upsetting a number of experienced, good-faith editors, myself included.

It is precisely the same conduct that got them blocked on Commons, Russian WP and Ukranian WP. Stalking may not be the right term for the behavior but I do believe there is deliberate harassment conducted by the editor. Misplaced Pages itself defines harassment as Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. That is clearly the effect their behavior has had with multiple ediors.

Here is a synopsis of my interactions with this user and why I feel I have been harassed and made to feel upset and frightened to the point that I’ve virtually stopped editing.

1. I uploaded File:Zuni wolf fetish with medicine bundle and heartline, carved by Stuart Lasiyoo.jpg. After uploading I realized the size was too large for fair-use, and made a note of my error on the file talk page (I was unable to reduce it because I did not have access to Photoshop at the time). BTW, Zuni fetishes are ceremonial objects made by the Zuni tribe of Native Americans that are also sold as small sculptures; they have nothing to do with the sexualized notion of "fetish".

2. I received message about the file on my user talk. Diff: to which I responded and answered on the file talk page.

3. The discussion then resumed at the File talk page about the deletion nomination. Diff: use rationale where I explained my rationale for fair use. The editor then responded with: judging by the response you didn't look at them; right?, which I thought was rather rude to assume I don't read messages (which explains my response on my user talk page).

4. They then went on the argue with me in a mocking tone: But it is so. wow, your contribution is bigger than mine, it's not for me to tell you about it and wow_2, who am I telling this to?. I told them that their response did not seem very nice. They responded: What I was trying to say is that what I'm saying, you already know. You know better than me. / uploading this image boggles my mind. I think it was around this time that Star Mississippi warned the editor on their talk page.

5. After I wrote a more detailed rationale why the file was suitable as fair-use, they refused to answer my own simple question responding instead with: I can answer all the questions posed in this message. And I will, if it be necessary. But first, please answer the question - and, for the sake of the experiment, let's assume that all the images in that category are really unsuitable... and asked me an "experimental question" whether I could create from scratch a "completely free image", a proposal that would involve spending a large amount of money. Diff: As a volunteer editor, that seemed utterly absurd, and it became clear to me they were just yanking my chain.

6. I then noticed they were treating others in similar ways, for example asking editors to buy a glass basketball backboard shield specifically to then smash it with a rock after installing a camera specifically to create a fair use image. Diffs: (uploaded by Left guide) ]. This clearly seemed they were wikilawyering and arguing for the sake of argument with the intent to annoy and intimidate others. I think it was around this time that Star Mississippi issued a short block.

7. I then noticed on their user page a link to their “Laboratory”, which creeped me out because the strange “experimental questions” seemed like mind-games. I noticed that not only was there an entry for the Zuni fetishes file, but that some of it was actually written in “invisible ink” using the < ! -- template, and included a a number of my file uploads. Diff from January 2: and . I know that being creepy is not a blockable offense but it scared the daylights me, because I have been Wiki-stalked not only online, but in real life.

8. I directly asked them to STOP following me around. Instead they created a user sub-page, replacing all the images with 19th century inaccurate illustrations, romanticized representations of the art of Zuni tribe Native Americans by none other than an ethnographer who looted artifacts from the Zuni people. Diff: I again demanded that they STOP and I quit editing. I refuse to be someone's "experimental laboratory" subject, that is disturbingly creepy.

9. If this is considered “normal” behavior by administrators, well, then after 13 years of editing, I’m out of here. I can not and I will not have a hobby as a volunteer editor in a place where I feel unsafe and harassed, especially from a single-purpose editor with a long history of such behavior – no matter if their tagging or deletions are “correct.” Netherzone (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond point by point here, but I don't think the uncivil interactions with you are "normal" behavior. The issue is that Iruka was already blocked for that conduct and I still don't see how the pages Iruka created in his userspace – which did not mention you by name and which he did not notify you of – are harassment. If Iruka starts being uncivil again or starts harassing people, I'll be the first to indef him. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that the behavior Netherzone mentions has been experience by multiple other users. This appears to be a pattern of inappropriate behavior spread out over quite some time. And quite honestly, the "laboratory" really does strike me as creepy behavior intended to needle other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The only two editors I have seen complain about stalking are Netherzone and Peterspeterson. I've asked multiple times for evidence that Iruka's file deletion nominations are largely incorrect, but the only evidence provided thus far have been files that other admins have seen fit to delete and contested FFD discussions. In my view, this complaint seems largely based on vibes and conduct preceding the block. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Having been pinged to this, my experience and another thread I saw suggests to me that the user really wants to delete things - not just that they are being gnomish in the area of deletion for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, no, that they actively want to delete stuff and be uncivil to those who do not share this philosophy. In this way, they seem to mass search for anything that could have a valid reason to delete, even if another another option is better or, as in what drew my attention, even if they have to make up some reason why a file meets deletion rationale when it doesn’t. That is another issue: while their deletion noms may be generally correct because they are seeking out files with issues, their tagging of files that only need reduction to be deleted, their tagging of Commons-eligible files, and their bizarre suggestion to purchase an iage license as proof of owenership, strike me as someone who does not understand Misplaced Pages or Commons policy very well and does not care if understanding will get in the way of their tagging g. ULtimately, the poor tags that may not get chance to be corrected, and rejectiong collaboratoon, negate any positive of being the first person to tag some bad files and thus make the user’s contributions in deletion a net negative for WP. I am struggling just to type this on mobile so can’t or provide diffs atm. Kingsif (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:अधिवक्ता संतोष, legal threat

अधिवक्ता संतोष is now blocked. The phrase that they were concerned about is now also removed. MolecularPilot 03:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See this friendly comment. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 06:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I obviously don't condone the legal threat, and an admin would be well within their right to block. But the complaint was about real vandalism (a claim that a prominent actor had entered politics "due to a failed acting career") that had remained up for a month—I can understand why someone would be frustrated. I have removed the claim and would not recommend any further action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

From their latest remark on the article talk page, it sounds like you removed the sentence that set them off, Extraordinary Writ. Liz 07:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above I have removed the claim. There are related conversations happening on the talk page as well as here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please notify the user of this discussion? •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've done so here: EvergreenFir (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked because, although they may have had a legitimate grievance, they went about addressing it the wrong way. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Just as an update, I have unblocked this user as they have agreed to avoid discussion of Indian law and making edit requests; as they did have one legitimate grievance, they may have others. They are also aware they will need to disclose as a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 15 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.

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)

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

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 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)

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)

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)

" 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)

A bizare editing war on the trotskyist organization list

• List of Trotskyist organizations by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the last 24 hours some strage editing war seem to have taking place on the following page trying to remove or change it's content:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/List_of_Trotskyist_organizations_by_country DiGrande (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. As ever, it should be addressed by reliable sources (which usually don't include social media sites) and talk page discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

These edit wars occur fairly regularly on articles related to these groups as there is a lot of in-fighting and division among members, former members and interested parties especially regarding the lineage of Trotskyist and communist organizations. If you are concerned and it continues, you can open a report at WP:ANEW and please notify the involved editors when you open complaints like this. Liz 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Communist organisations taking chunks out of one another? Well, I never — Czello 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, there is nothing more insulting than being incorrectly called a Trotskyist. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this oddity appears to likely be Stalinist splinters trolling each other by adding their rivals to the list of Trotskyist groups. _signed, Rosguill 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this is really bizarre -- I'd say "Trotskyist organizations getting into petty internecine conflict" is about as predictable as, oh, someone already made this exact same comment. jp×g🗯️ 06:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The disputes between The People's Front of Judea, The Judean People's Popular Front, The Campaign for a Free Galilee, and The Popular Front of Judea? Narky Blert (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Has this editor been gaming to get EC?

GAME OFF Editor does not appear to be gaming the system. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Loads of tiny edits, others unsourced. See also User talk:Religião, Política e Futebol. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Would they actually be gaming for EC if they continued their really fast edits after getting EC? Tarlby 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Their 500th edit was on Jan 14 15:58. They've continued to make a whole ton of edits after that point, so they're probably not trying to game. Tarlby 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I wondered about that also, perhaps they didn’t know they had made 500 edots

That’s why I brought it here. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Right. For experienced users it's easy to see when the 500 edit mark has been passed, but for a new user maybe not so much. To add a single wikilink and then remove it three minutes later is pretty suggestive of gaming. Bishonen | tålk 21:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC).

You're correct, I installed a script that states how many edits an account has made but a new editor would not know about these tools or about looking at Edit Count on the Contributions page. Liz 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I find that script very useful. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll only know for-almost-sure if the editor now does something for which thay need the extended confirmed right. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

True. But I worry about the quality of their edits. See for instance Special:Diff/1269418314 which added Hanim to her birth name so it now reads "Born as Ayşe Hanım" in the "Early life" section, contradicting the lead. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

(They have the best username, though! Bishonen | tålk 15:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC).)

I think a reminder on their talk page to pay attention to quality when editing quickly is appropriate for now, and this can be closed as consensus against existence of EC gaming. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:MeetSingh316

Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

• MeetSingh316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MeetSingh316 (talk · contribs), after edit warring on Sri Charitropakhyan and claiming to be "correct misinformation", appears to have made a legal threat. mwwv ∫_edits 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:مشرا

BLOCKED User indeffed. (non-admin closure) Heart 16:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

مشرا (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is not new to ANI and already got multiple articles deleted (e.g., Sudhanoti), has now started a promotional campaign in favor of jihadist Yusuf Khan Aba Khel Saduzai and his self-published book REGISTER SUDHNΟΤΙ A COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF THE SADOZAI TRIBE, which they also promoted on other pages (e.g., Sudhanoti District). I would support an indefinite block from mainspace, as already proposed by Mach61. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I've given the user a {{welcomeen-ur}}, since Urdu seems to be their primary language (diff) and their apparent grasp of English doesn't inspire confidence in their potential as a long-term contributor on enwiki. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Richard Yin, for some reason your signature doesn't seem to have worked there. CMD (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Not sure why, but WP:TW didn't subst: the template. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Also: link to past discussion since the "not new to ANI" link in the original post doesn't point to archives. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You are also requested to help new people instead of blogging, of course new people need your help, you and all others are requested to delete any content on the page that violates Misplaced Pages's rules. Go against it and keep the page just with a few words to identify the historian and his book, it won't hurt Misplaced Pages, I hope you help newbies, thanks. 08:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)مشرا (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

We certainly want to help newbies, but "it won't hurt Misplaced Pages" is not an argument to keep something. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, you should stop promoting that terrorist as "an influent historian" and his work as "the most important history book ever" . That's just a bunch of hoaxes and propaganda. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

PS: You've been editing enwiki for years, stop hiding propaganda behind the "newbie" label. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 09:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked. I have blocked the user indefinitely as being here only for promotion, for serious competence concerns, and for repeated outrageous accusations against the reviewer of one of their drafts. Bishonen | tålk 15:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC).

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

Scam phone numbers being added to articles, rangeblock needed

Block applied directly to the range. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

IPs from the 2409:40d0 range have been adding fake scam phone numbers to the articles of airlines and travel companies. Similar issues have recently led to Breeze Airways and Spirit Airlines being semi protected and 223.190.83.251 being blocked. I think a rangeblock is needed, and a lot of the contributions in the link above need to be revdelled to get rid of the scam number. I went to AIV at first but there is a severe backlog there and the vandalism is continuing and chronic, so I'm here. — ser! 12:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This has now been sorted. Thanks Zzuuzz. ser! 13:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Just noting that this isn't their only range, so probably expect others. Thanks for your vigilance. -- zzuuzz 13:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

User:Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari's editing

PLBLOCKED Blocked from article space. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

@Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari: continues to make several unreferenced edits in several articles, despite being told several times in their talk page to post references. The reported editor was also told many times, to use the edit summary, and looking at their contributions page, they haven't explained any of their edits through their edit summary. They also never respond to talk page messages. Is there anything that can be done with this? I have reported this editor in ANI back in November 2024 and they didn't respond as well.Hotwiki (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Since they have never listened nor responded to talk page since November 2023, I suggest a 7 days block with talk page access, the block should specify that they can appeal the block by explaining themselves, and that they should explain themselves rather than waiting out the 7 days or committing sockpuppetry, the goal is to get them to talk. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they have never used a talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article space indefinitely. If they provide a reasonable response anyone can unblock them. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic ban or ban on creating articles outside the AFC process?

SOCK IT TO THEM PsychoticIncall blocked for sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

PsychoticIncall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been an editor since March of last year. As can be seen on their Talk page and on the page creation log, since May 2024, they have created dozens of articles and unlikely redirects, many of which have been deleted after AfDs. Currently, from their talk page alone, I count 29 articles on non-notable poker players that ended up being deleted, and a further nine that ended up as redirects or a merge to a more appropriate article, with only six of the AfD'ed articles being kept. This is obviously a drain on the time of people who regularly participate at New Pages Patrol and/or AfD.

A request to become more familiar with WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE and to consider using the WP:AFC process for new articles (and to not create unlikely redirects) went unanswered. 23 articles have been deleted/redirected since then, by my count.

While notability is the main concern, sourcing, spelling and grammar on these pages are all less than ideal. An IP asked about the user's process for article creation (also unanswered), specifically asking about apparently random/non-sequitur section headings (which can be seen still in place at Anson Tsang) - similar seemingly random headings were also used on the (now-deleted) article Malo Lanois article (mentioned in the AfD.) Many of the surviving articles use essentially random terms, with poker players being described (without sources) as "semi-amateur", and "quarter-professional".

I would like to propose either a topic ban from poker and poker-related articles for PsychoticIncall; or, at minimum, a ban on creating articles outside of the WP:AFC process. Bastun 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You stated that 23 articles have been deleted since September 2024. But are these 23 articles newly created since September 2024, or prior to that? If they have reduced their article creations over time as their articles get deleted (of which 6 survived), I don't think any ban is appropriate, and uninvolved editors should weigh in on a guidance in creating poker player articles in the future. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

A better question to ask is "Is their ratio of good work to bad any better?" I'd say no, it's not significantly better. I'd support a topic ban or article-space ban; their attachment to the topic seems to keep them immune from listening to requests to change their behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked at their user creation logs, and they markedly reduced their article creations after Bastun's warning on 17:55, 2 September 2024, seeing they only created 4 articles which admittedly 3 were deleted. I think anyone creating 4 articles and having 3 articles deleted is not ground for ANI. They made a lot of redirects that were deleted though, I think a warning against careless redirect creations is appropriate, because it appears they listen to warnings. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

A quick check of the creation logs is showing me that since 30 September, they have created 32 redirects, 5 of which remain undeleted, and 9 articles, 2 of which remain undeleted. Bastun 10:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Please just block them indef, they not only have massive competence issues but they are a sock of a blocked editor, . I can provide more evidence or start an SPI if necessary. Fram (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, wow - good catch! Looking at User_talk:TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee, it looks indistinguishable from User talk:PsychoticIncall. Note also the use of the invented (?) term, "quarter professional", in article titles on that talk page, a term PsychoticIncall also uses. Quack. Bastun 10:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a convincing case for SPI, please start it. Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've started it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

However, there is a big gap in time since EBBB was blocked until now, so we may not get good CU results. But I'm going to block on behavior for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Adrikshit

Adrikshit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been continuously adding unsourced and poorly sourced content or changing referenced content, often relating to Bhojpuri related articles.

• Some examples: , .

• Examples of inappropriate summaries: , .

• Examples of inappropriate use of templates: , , , , .

• Warnings: , , , , .

I made contact with this user for the first time, after reverting an edit, in which the user changed the names of the headings on Caribbean Hindustani, this edit went unnoticed for a while, but a similar one was reverted before that. There was also dispute on the Bhojpuri page, in this case I do believe I should have jumped to WP:DR faster, rather than continuing with reverting. However the user often jumps to bad faith or warnings: , I don't really know how to further deal with this. Hermes Express (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I see that there is nothing about this dispute at Talk:Caribbean Hindustani. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on the discussion mentioned above, I think it is unlikely that that would have been resolved, besides changing the headings, the user also deleted other names of the languages and how Caribbean Hindustani is also based on another language besides Bhojpuri: . Hermes Express (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Suspicious activity of several accounts

OP has withdrawn complaint. They know the way to WP:SPI and have been encouraged to make use of it. Liz 22:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

I'm not going to take this to sockpuppet investigation because I don't have enough evidence of sockpuppetry. So I'm going to report it here just in case, someone could investigate this situation. @Kaloypangilinan: restored @CindyMalena:'s edits in these two articles.. I reverted CindyMalena's edits because they were unreferenced. Both these editors didn't add a reference to the same names they've added in the two articles and they didn't use the edit summary. These are the unreferenced edits of CindyMalena. The changes of CindyMalena/Kaloypangilinan aren't 100% identical, but they've added names that the references of the article don't mention. Kaloypangilinan has been warned 4 times (last year) in their talkpage for unreferenced content. Kaloypangilinan also don't respond to talk page messages, they've been reported here in ANI before, and still continue to make unreferenced edits. Since I became suspicious if these two editors are connected, I discovered CindyMalena created this page for "Kaloy Tingcungco", an actor in the Philippines according to Google. Then I googled "Kaloy Pangilinan" in google and pictures of the Philippine actor "Kaloy Tingcungco" came out. Whats weirder is CindyMalena edited the Wikipage of this blocked account User:Fakolyabouz. I don't know how can a newly created account edit a Wikipage of a blocked editor, if they aren't connected. Hotwiki (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You really should take this to WP:SPI. For one thing, if you're right, it's the appropriate venue. For another, if you're wrong but have put together a case with behavioural evidence such as the editing of a blocked editor's user boxes you're less likely to get accused of casting aspersions. My sincere recommendation is to withdraw this incident report and then create a SPI case. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Per @Simonm223:'s suggestion, I'm going to withdraw this incident report. As for a SPI case, both CindyMalena and Kaloypangilinan have less than 200 edits and I simply don't have enough amount of evidence to report them in Spi. Hotwiki (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hotwiki, why do you think the editors have to have made 200 edits before they can be reported? Some editors who have been blocked as sockpuppets have made 0 edits. Liz 19:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The last editor, I've reported relating to sockpuppetry before this was User:Arborgenus had 71 edits. Looking at the contributions page of Kaloypangilinan and CindyMalena, I don't have much evidence aside from what I already posted here. I did notice the similar behavior of no communication in their respective talkpage and not using the edit summary. Like I said, I don't know how can a new account can locate this page User:Fakolyabuoz/Bryce_Eusebio, since the user page of Fakolyabuoz is empty and their talkpage don't have any posts that would direct new users to User:Fakolyabuoz/Bryce_Eusebio. I would need more evidence if I ever report something to SPI. I've only submitted reports in SPI, twice if I'm remembering correctly. Hotwiki (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hotwiki, if you have enough evidence then you should report suspected sockpuppetry at WP:SPI. If you don't have enough evidence then you shouldn't report it anywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I did make a mistake coming here about this issue, thats why I already withdrew this report. Also, I've only made two sockpuppet reports (if I remember correctly) which both were stressful for me. With Kaloypangilinan/CindyMalena, I just didn't want to go through the same process with fewer evidences, which is why I came here to ANI. Hotwiki (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like @Hotwiki is just looking for assurance that it's OK to take this to SPI with this evidence?

Hotwiki, I'm not an admin or a checkuser, nor an expert on SPI, but you can always try submitting a report. It's easier if you use Twinkle. There isn't any rush to submit a report, you can take your time. Knitsey (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Knitsey:. For now, I don't feel confident filing a SPI report against CindyMalena/Kaloy Pangilinan. The last SPI case I made was stressful because the sockpuppeteer had several accounts. I ended up doing 2 reports which were both confirmed right. Last month, I reported a sockpuppeteer in ANI because they admitted it through their talkpage and it was connected to those two times I made a report in Spi. But this is a different case with Kaloypangilinan/CindyMalena. If I get more evidences in the future, I would go back to it and send it to SPI. Thank you for the suggestions and I'm sorry if I brought up my sockpuppet suspicious here, since this isn't the right place for that. Hotwiki (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User Douglas1998A creating incorrect categories.

The pblock will continue until communication improves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Two weeks ago I opened this discussion on Douglas1998A creating and adding incorrect categories to pages, most notably on Now Generation and América (Brazilian TV series). In November 2024, they created Category:Portuguese-language American telenovelas and added it to Now Generation and América (Brazilian TV series), even though they are not American telenovelas. The category was deleted but in December 2024, they created Category:Brazilian-American telenovelas and added the previously mentioned pages to this new category when they are only Brazilian telenovelas and not American ones. . The category was deleted and the user created it once more today and added it to Now Generation and América (Brazilian TV series) again.

The first time this issue was brought up to the noticeboard it was never resolved as the user failed to discuss the issue after being notified of the discussion, and they have never bothered to reply back to messages on their talk page. How can this be resolved if the user continuously fails to engage in consensus building?Telenovelafan215 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Pretty obviously a communication is required problem and also wrong. The telenovelas don't have any American production outside of one being dubbed into Spanish by a U.S. broadcaster, which does not count. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Has Douglas1998A done any positive work in Category space? Because if it's just warring over these two categories, they could be partially blocked from Categories unless their other work creating categories is fine. Liz 20:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Douglas1998A's talk page, two other categories created by them were nominated and deleted. These were: Category:Artists who acted in films and television shows and Category:Artists who acted in films and television shows. So I believe there it's more than just the Brazilian/Portuguese categories.

I have also mentioned to Douglas1998A that pages should be placed in the most specific categories to which they belong. For example on La gran sorpresa they persistently added Category:Spanish-language television programming in the United States, when the page is already in the subcategory Category:Univision original programming.

Douglas1998A's lack of communication and reverting edits show they are unwilling to discuss and resolve the issues with their edits. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

A day has passed since the user was notified of this discussion. They have continued editing and have not bothered to reply. The user is ignoring the issue and it will once again be unresolved. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 User blocked from article space per WP:COMMUNICATE. Once the user begins commmunicating and adequately addresses these concerns, any admin is free to lift the block. Jauerback/_dude. 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Bad redirects by User:StrexcorpEmployee

StrexcorpEmployee was blocked by Beeblebrox, and then unblocked by me with a restriction from most redirect creation/retargeting. Bugghost is warned for personal attacks in the form of repeated false allegations of sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

I'd like to ask for a tban on making/changing redirects for StrexcorpEmployee, as they continue to make ridiculous redirects that waste community time.

Examples include:

• Boner law → Pornography#Legality and regulations
• United Rapes → Rape in the United States
• Towergate → September 11 attacks
• Bush Dick Incident → Presidency of George W. Bush
• Germans love to eat → Stereotypes of Germans

Their talk page is completely full of notices that redirects they have made are being discussed/deleted, and they have never replied to anything there, including a final warning from Tamzin to stop making bad redirects.

Also likely had sockpuppet account to do the same thing, as brought up at SPI in last year (and if not sockpuppettry, then personal attacks against the other account - calling them a "weirdo" "creep" "stalker" while mocking the sock's "American Rapes" redirect while defending their own "United Rapes" redirect).

Preferably an indef block but a redirect TBAN would probably suffice. BugGhost 🦗👻 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I've issued an indef block. The final warning was issued 29 months ago and ignored, like every other post to their talk pages. Willingness to communicate with other users is a requirement, not an option, and these redirects are so childish that they remind me of the NEELIX saga. Beeblebrox 20:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! BugGhost 🦗👻 20:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: My warning was for a specific kind of bad redirect creation, which has not recurred, although "United Rapes" bordered on vandalism, which is enough to make me think she shouldn't be creating redirects. I tend to think that StrexcorpEmployee is here in good faith and just has a bad sense of what makes a good redirect, and her unblock request seems reasonable. (There's also the sockpuppetry question, but two CUs ruled that unrelated, so I don't know where BugGhost is getting her "likely" being a sock.) What would you think of an unblock with a restriction limiting redirect creation to WP:AFC/R—if she'll agree to it? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Setting aside the question of blocking/unblocking, @Bugghost, I can't say I'm thrilled that you referred to my 2022 warning as a "final warning from Tamzin to stop making bad redirects", when I literally just told you that it was narrower than that, nor at you calling SE likely a sock while linking to an SPI where two CUs cleared them—which is, to be clear, a personal attack. I expect that someone filing at AN/I will disclose the full facts of a case, not just the ones favorable to their side, and definitely not a selective omission of exonerating evidence. Invoking NPA over calling an LTA a "creep" for impersonating them, in a comment six months ago, is also a Hell of a stretch. If you're going to bring someone to AN/I, bring them here with the facts that exist; don't manufacture controversy. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly didn't mean to misquote you - your words were If you create another redirect based on a SubredditSimulator post , where that is not a term that a human would plausibly use (as with Hitler's breakfast and Bush Dick Incident), or again create a vandalistic redirect for any other reason, I will block your account for vandalism. - I interpretted the phrasing "If you do X again I will block you" as a final warning. You're right that I shouldn't have used "bad" in replacement for "vandalistic" because they're not the same, sorry about that.

Regarding the SPI link, I wasn't trying to imply that the CU's were incorrect - I said the sockpuppet account was User:Smackarea, who was not mentioned at all by CU's there, but is a pretty obvious WP:DUCK. I'm not trying to manufacture controversy here, I just saw a few bad redirects and looked around. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

StrexcorpEmployee behaves differently from previous sockpuppets, and this sockmaster has a known history of joe jobs — Sro23 in the SPI report for Smackarea. A clerk in that case, rather than a CU, but... well I may be biased as a former clerk, but a clerk saying someone isn't a sock is usually more exculpating than a CU saying it. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 22:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, I think the conditions you lay out for an unblock are very reasonable. Let's hope Beeblebrox sees this message today. Liz 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I was having lunch with my wife and driving around in the snow, just got back.

I'd be fine with an unblock with a tban on creating redirects, as they were creating stupid redirects as recently as yesterday, and frankly "United rapes" was enough on its own to have justified a block months ago. I'm somewhat astounded that some of these redirects went to RFD instead of being speedy deleted.

I do think they should be reminded as well that communication is part of what we are doing here, and not responding to messages on their talk pages until after they are blocked is not a good look. Beeblebrox 22:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And for the record socking was not in any way part of my reason for blocking, which I logged as "Disruptive editing creating infantile vandalistic redirects, never responding to any communication on their talk page" which I believe is accurate. Beeblebrox 22:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Unblock per adequate unblock request. They did "make ridiculous redirects", but they did not "make ridiculous redirects that waste community time". Tamzin's warning was an "only warning", not a "final warning". Two out of five redirects listed were the subject of Tamzin's warning and outdated. SPI exonerated her, instead of finding her a likely sock. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify:

• All ridiculous redirects waste community time
• An only warning is also a final warning, by definition
• SPI exonerated her of being Heres The Dealio, which I'm not disputing, but made no conclusion about Smackarea, the only account I mentioned being a likely sock. But the sock is irrelevant in the grand scheme, so I'll drop it.

Either way, I'd be fine with a redirect tban instead of a block, if consensus is leaning that way. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bugghost: You are simply incorrect. Sro23 found that she was not Smackarea on 25 July. It's not enough to say "I'll drop it" while repeating a fallacious statement even after you've been told you were wrong, so I'm going to make this a warning: Falsely accusing someone of sockpuppetry is a personal attack, and if you are unable to correctly read an SPI so as to understand which accusations have been verified or falsified, you should not be in the business of making sockpuppetry accusations, and certainly should not be doubling or tripling down when told you are wrong. On that note, I'll be closing this, as I've unblocked her. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Two editors and WineGUI

Danger89 indef'd per WP:NOTHERE. Justcomic1 indef'd as an obvious sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

• Danger89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Justcosmic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WineGUI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two editors, Danger89 and Justcosmic1, have been constantly pushing for what seems like a restoration of the WineGUI article, which was changed to a redirect per an AFD I started, complete with a lack of competence. Timeline of events:

• I start the WineGUI AFD, citing a genuine reason in the AFD that the article shows no importance or notability whatsoever. I did this after I started a PROD, which was reverted by Danger89 (they're a developer of WineGUI, I'll explain later).
• In AFD, all editors unilaterally vote yes. Danger89 replies to almost all of them, giving a source of their GitLab page, and saying it's not primary. When asked why they are writing an article about their own product (aka COI violations), they just say something along the lines of, "I don't like it"
• After the AFD is closed, I take a look at Danger89's user page. There, they state that they are indeed the developer of the app, so I leave them a notice about COI with a stern warning that they may be blocked if they continue to ignore COI rules. In response to this, an IP which can confidently be assumed to be Danger89 logged out just writes block me, showing a disruptive attitude.
• Danger89 cites a userbase number on the WineGUI talk page to which I reply that notability does not depend on things like that. Justcosmic1, within 3 edits, twists the PROD policy by saying that I knew there would be opposition (no I didn't), and saying that I have a beef with Danger89, failing to cite any evidence.
• Danger89 blanks my userpage, to which I give a generic level 4 warning. After this, Justcosmic1 joins the conversation and writes a reply that looks like it was from Danger89. This appears to be their fourth edit, which looks extremely suspicious and like a sock (not making any allegations, but just saying). Their other 3 edits were on the WineGUI talk page.

Also, Danger89 continually edited the WineGUI page while it was still up, further contravening COI rules. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 01:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Al-Naghawi page

• Al-Naghawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

currently there is an edit issue going on with the Al-Naghawi page as information is being changed back and forth alongside the page's title name so I wish for admin intervention to resolve issues as sources are not being checked which are cited as they are irrelevant to the page. 82.14.223.77 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANEW is thataway. → - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

CALLED ON THE CARPET Blocked with TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warning. —Bruce1ee 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've pulled TPA as well, since they can't help spamming, apparently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. —Bruce1ee 09:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Magian Priest's Descendant - egregious personal attacks

Magian Priest's Descendant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm sorry, but ask someone that's more intelligent. A European, perhaps.

SHUT THE FUCK UP!... IMPBRAIN!

Other than the fact that HistoryofIran is a retarded parsi...

Also violated WP:3RR at Vologases V , refusing to use the talk page (whose comments shows that they either have WP:CIR issues or are trolling). --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

While not strictly a 3RR violation (note the last diff is a different edit) but absolutely edit-warring, and when combined with the personal attacks in the edit-summaries, have blocked them for 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks The Bushranger! HistoryofIran (talk) 11:01, 16 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)

• 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)

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 wikipedia 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. 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)

• 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)

• 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)

User:CoastRedwood - Harassment

Blocked for a week and warned not to do this. Good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

Repeated personal attacks, harassment and not following behavior policies by CoastRedwood. Despite multiple warnings from multiple editors to address the behavior, CoastRedwood has edited other users' pages, engaged in personal attacks, made uncivil comments and is not willing to heed constructive feedback. Personal attacks/harassment - , , and editing others' userpages' , , , , , . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not great. A weird WP:RGW mentality toward... emojis? Mentions of anthromorphic foxes? And, frankly, the specific personal attack of degenerate used in that specific context is... it suggests a disruptive editing mindset. I don't know. Maybe their non-disruptive work on animal species has enough value that we don't go directly to a WP:NOTHERE block (though I am on the fence about that) but, at the very least, they need a topic ban from editing other editors user pages. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is being dealt with on CoastRedwood's talk page by sysops, and escalating it to AN/I is premature.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the timeline of the edits made. CoastRedwood is still approaching both the editors after two admins have already tried explaining it to him. This was made recently after multiple warnings. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that diff. I didn't see it. That was after my formal warning, so I went ahead and blocked them for a week just now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I'm not sure what caused this user to make such remarks against ArkHyena and I; also thankful for the quick actions taken while I was a bit busy. Some of the content they removed from my userpage was only intended to promote humor and just for a little fun, and their rationales for it sound questionable, at the least. ~ Tails Wx 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, but that was your first mistake. You see, fun is not allowed on here :P

NewBorders (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Earl Andrew

Heat exceeding light. Legend of 14 is advised that ANI is the last resort for dispute resolution, not the first, and in the future should exhaust other options before coming here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

Earl Andrew is using personal attacks against me for leaving notices on WP:BLPN. It is interfering in those discussions.

Diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269826037
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269826716

Legend of 14 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you try discussing with Earl Andrew about supposed personal attacks before coming here? Tarlby 16:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No I did not. How does one respond directly to disrespectful comments and accusations of bad faith, followed by a suggestion that you should do their job under WP:BURDEN on wikipedia, because I have no idea what to say to them. I wouldn't normally resort to ANI over these comments, but in my opinion these comments are inferring in discussions on WP:BLPN. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would ask for an apology directly if I was getting personally attacked. Tarlby 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I felt like asking for an apology in this case would likely escalate the disputes in question, and could be seen as provocative in this case. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Does opening an ANI thread for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems not escalate the disputes in question? Tarlby 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anything I've done in this thread could be seen as taunting or baiting. I think a reply like "Please apologize for your personal attack" would be seen as taunting. ANI escalates the dispute, but in a way that did not unreasonably increase the chance of incivility. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those is a personal attack. The second is more critical of you than the first, but still a long ways from an attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Accusing me of making bad faith edits, without offering any evidence to support bad intentions is a personal attack. The first diff is more of a disrespectful comment than a personal attack, I could've been more clear. Both comments are bad for the discussion. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You are removing non contentious information from a lot of articles, and claiming they are contentious. That to me feels like bad faith editing. Up for interpretation for sure, but in no way did I mean it as a personal attack. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Provide diffs. I can't respond to unsubstantiated claims. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Why were you deleting Allan Higdon's birthplace? GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain how this question relates to the topic of Earl Andrew's comments? If understand why you're asking the question I'll be able to give a better answer. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks in the diffs you provided. I would say that Earl calling you a destructive force wasn't very WP:CIVIL, but WP:WIAPA tells me that those comments weren't "personal" attacks. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

"These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

-WP:WIAPA

I never called him a "destructive force". Legend of 14 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your comment. The quote from WIAPA still stands. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, that might have been a personal attack, but also please read WP:PA#First offenses and isolated incidents. ANI should have been the last resort for you. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

See above comments for why I did not think I had other options. Also, see how even after being aware that I found the comments insulting/disparaging, the user continued to make them without substantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Earl_Andrew-20250116171300-Legend_of_14-20250116164200. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Insulting or disparaging is very different than having a disagreement. While WIAPA is not exhaustive, neither of those diffs area anywhere in the same ballpark as the other examples -- this is a million miles away from Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based (common discrimination classes), Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people or threats. There is no incivility in asking "how is something contention", even if it is prefixed with "how on earth"... If you feel insulted or disparaged because someone questioned the validity of your contributions, you need to grow a thicker skin. Also did you even read the section on top about Before posting? Which of those have you actually attempted before coming here? Also as someone else has mentioned you should be cautioned about boomerang, meaning that your own actions also have a spotlight on them and you have volunteered put your own edits and conduct up for scrutiny. TiggerJay (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No one has linked to any of my edits here. There's a difference between some criticizing an identified edit and making disparaging remarks about unidentified edits by a named editor. I can't defend the edits that the user has a problem with because they have not been clearly identified with me. When an edit I made that was identified was brought up here, I did my best to answer the questions.

I did not raise every issue here on the users talk page. When I tried to raise issues on the editor's talk page see User talk:Earl Andrew#January 2025, I got called unconstructive. When I went to the forum WP:BLPN, the editor escalated by disparaging me as editing in bad faith. I had reason to believe that further discussion on the talk page would go nowhere, so I posted here under WP:Ignore All Rules, instead of making what I felt would almost certainly be another unproductive talk page discussion. Given that since making this notice, the user has continued to make unsubstantiated claims about my character, I think I had the correct judgement. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You have not addressed the question how the diffs you provided of EA's behavior is anywhere in the ballpark of the criteria of WIAPA. You were the one who claimed as such, so the onus is on you to substantiate in what way where their comments violating the policy on personal attacks. I would even have a hard time considering them uncivil, but even if they were, uncivility is quite a different matter than a personal attack. So which aspects of WP:WIAPA do you feel EA's comments closely resemble? TiggerJay (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the comments about me acting in bad faith are disparaging remarks about me and therefore qualify as personal attacks. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I also think the comment about "How in the world" is an insult against me given the context is, it was promptly followed by another comment by the same user accusing me of bad faith. I hope this explanation is satisfactory. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggesting my statements are a "personal attack" on you carries about the same weight as me suggesting this whole discussion is a personal attack against me. You are grasping at straws. If you're going to pick fights with everyone who dares cross your path (I see you've bombarded User:Adam Bishop's talk page now), you may find yourself blocked. And no, that's not a threat, I am not going to block you, as that would be a conflict of interest.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The only possibilities here are "extremely stupid" or "troll". Either way it's a clear case of disruptive editing. I suppose I can't do the banning myself either, now. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I finding Dispute resolution confusing. This convo should be closed because I didn't try to resolve all my disputes with you first, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Bushranger-20250116213500-Legend_of_14-20250116190800. But, also now that I'm trying to resolve concerns as I become aware of them with another user outside of ANI, I should also be blocked for that. Don't use ANI, use the talk page for all issues first, but also don't keep posting on the talk page. Can you please clearly state the process I should go through to resolve disputes? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you should be blocked, I'm saying that if you continue with this petty behaviour, someone will inevitably block you. Learn from this experience and stop trying to pick fights with people.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start fights with others though. I've never directly commented on another's character. I've tried to focus on the content of the articles or discussion pages comments, not why such actions were done or the character of the person doing them, and on the relevant policies. What are you saying I should do differently? Legend of 14 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You do realize you were the one who instigated this ANI case, correct? You're actually lodging a formal complaint about a different editors behavior. It's a little late to suggest you're simply an innocent bystander. TiggerJay (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm a bystander. I'm not the one who made uncivil comments on WP:BLPN, which is what started this "fight". Legend of 14 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this dispute, but just in case you're unaware, the behavior of anyone participating in these threads, whether as someone who's reporting, being reported, or even just commenting, may be scrutinized for wrongdoing. See WP:BOOMERANG. NewBorders (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll give the answer here I gave on WP:BLPN, I removed uncited claims about immigration status. To add additional information beyond what I said there, Canada's immigration system has somewhat recent come under fire for being used to suppress wage growth https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/temporary-immigration-programs-are-pushing-down-wage-growth-in-canada-economists-say/, so I removed the uncited content because for that reason it could be considered contentious. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to include an instance on User talk:Earl Andrew where the user says they're "suspicious of this user's true intentions", without linking to any edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Earl_Andrew#c-Earl_Andrew-20250116180500-Tarlby-20250116174800 This happened after I initiated the ANI. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Legend of 14, what sort of resolution are you seeking here? Because so far, while some editors acknowledge that Earl Andrew could have been more civil, no one has agreed with you that these are personal attacks. Are you looking for validation, an apology, a chance to vent, or some kind of sanction because the latter won't be happening based on the response here. Liz 18:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Another user has agreed that these could be personal attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-The_Corvette_ZR1-20250116174800-Legend_of_14-20250116173700. I was hoping for a retraction of all the unsubstantiated claims about me acting in bad faith and comments that the user is suspicious of my intentions and an interaction ban with me, and a restriction against making comments about my character anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not going to happen. is not remotely a personal attack. could be more WP:CIVIL but is also not a personal attack. And again, you must attempt to resolve issues before coming to ANI, which you by your own admission chose not to do. Strongly suggest this be closed as there is nothing to do here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Chronic refusal to comply re edit summaries/copious, tendentious editing

Despite years of requests by numerous editors to leave edit summaries, User: K1ngstowngalway1 makes another apology, another promise, leaves cursory remarks for a minority of their edits for a short while, then back to highly prolific editing with no explanations. (Raised repeatedly in their current talk page (most recently here), this previous talk page version (blanked, apparently in a botched archiving attempt) and at the talk page of a previous user name.)

This would be problematic if the edits were not contentious but a high proportion are. Currently they are causing concern at Jacobitism articles. (See again the iterations of their talk pages referred to above, this discussion and this one, re OR, inaccurate citation, excessively lengthy quotes, overwhelming articles with peripheral or off-topic material, neutrality concerns, primary and self-published sources, ENGVAR, MOS, slow warring, blanking of maintenance tags, editorialising, anachronism.)

A previous incident on this issue was lodged here but closed down after this exchange, later referred to again when there was no compliance.

The abundance and extent of edits and the almost total omission of explanation makes it impossible to assess the editor's copious work. If the much-repeated excuse of absent-mindedness is to be taken seriously, it indicates instead a significant and chronic competence issue. They either have no ability or no intention to engage meaningfully to explain their editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this in detail but I warned K1ngstowngalway1 about edit summaries on 25 November 2024, got a promise to improve, and note that they are still only using edit summaries occasionally and omitting them for substantial edits, eg ,,, to pick just three recent ones. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

For more regarding problematic editing at Jacobitism, see this talk page discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Block request: IP user edit-warring and not discussing edits.

IP warned against edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

IP user 98.97.15.82 is engaging in edit-warring on New Glenn regarding the vehicle being either "operational" or "under-development." Another user started a discussion on the talk page and I participated in it and referenced the discussion when reverting the IP user's edit. The IP user has since reverted the edit again and not participated in the discussion. I can't contact this user further as they are not on an account and do not want to continue an edit-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpacaaviator (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:PopPunkFanBoi69 is being highly disruptive (battleground, attacks, edit war)

Blocked. SPI still open. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

To noone's surprise, PopPunkFanBoi69 was indeed a sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

PopPunkFanBoi69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure that User:PopPunkFanBoi69 is here to build an encyclopaedia. Their edit history consists of a lot of unsourced content additions/changes, such as diff 1, diff 2. They have made talk page posts that are personal attacks or WP:BATTLEGROUND style, such as diff 1 (battleground), diff 2 (attack).

Despite being warned by User:Binksternet (diff) for edit warring on 'List of rock genres', they continue to restore their edits without consensus (diff).

One final thing that made me proceed to making this AN/I report: check out this reply on User:PopPunkFanBoi69's talk page, here's a quote from that: This is why I fucking hate editing Misplaced Pages because multiple accounts that have been blocked & having to create a new account! This suggests to me that this is a sockpuppet account, although I don't know about this user and their previous accounts.

Either way, I see numerous policy violations here, such as civility, edit warring and potential violation of the multiple accounts policy. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You haven’t looked at the Misplaced Pages articles Alternative pop & Alternative R&B for sources! So you don’t see the sources then stay quiet! Look at the Alternative rock article also for sources! PopPunkFanBoi69 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You may not know me but come to my talk page if you wanna know about me & my previous accounts like I understand you’re concerned for me & I’m inviting you to my talk page so you can get the full story! PopPunkFanBoi69 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have reported the problem here, but I got the sense I had seen this behavior before. After confirming my suspicion, I started a casepage at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RockMusic69. What with socking, a personal attack, and a 3RR violation, this person is not likely to retain their editing ability. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not a sockpuppet I’m just a very smart guy who knows a lot about music & Rock genres! Please by all means call me nasty names but I reported you! PopPunkFanBoi69 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

EdsonCordeirodeSouza - Disruptive editing and edit warring

Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

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

The user in question has been persistently disruptive editing and edit warring, currently primarily on The Masked Singer (American TV series) season 10. As it's been excluded for however long, the contestant/mask/celebrity they continue adding to the table was not a competing contestant and was only in the season as a special guest, as already mentioned in prose text with the table. Also in their preferred version that they keep edit warring back to, they continue messing up one of the sources URLs, changing it from https://web.archive.org/web/20230925131501/https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-masked-singer-season-10-premiere-recap-demi-lovato-anonymouse-1235719311/ to https://web.archive.org/web/20230925131501/https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-masked-singer-season-10-premiere-recap-demi-lovato-anony mouse-1235719311/, which in turn, continues to create a reference error.

As seen on their talk page, this also does not appear to be their first time disruptively editing and edit warring. Despite their warnings less than a month ago and their recent warnings I've added to their talk page, they continue doing the same exact thing and there is no communication from them whatsoever. I had originally reported this at AIV, but as it was not specifically 'vandalism', I was advised to come here. Hoping this can be resolved, thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Janessian is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia

Janessian seems to be not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to harass editors over a pair of images they don't like in the article Killing of Wong Chik Yeok. They have already been sanctioned twice for edit warring on the article, but this latest comment between myself, JBW, NelsonLee20042020, and Skywatcher68, they posted this lovely little gem on JBW's talk page. Nelson has just informed me that Janessian has made a rather unpleasant comment on phil knights talk page as well .Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Insanityclown1, do you have more diffs that show a pattern of behavior? I think there has alreay been a report about them at ANI and a link to that discussion would help the case you are making. Liz 06:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they were called both to ANI and ANEW. Links to prevous discussions help put a complaint in context. Liz 06:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Link to my complaint to ANEW: , . JBW handled the first block. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken about a prior visit to ANI. I thought Isabelle blocked them. Liz 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point my main concern is protecting fellow editors. Janessian's conduct has caused @NelsonLee20042020 what seems to be a fair amount of distress. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Isabelle blocked Janessian from editing the article. but some degree of talk page harassment has continued. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Janessian's editing is unacceptable in several ways, including edit-warring, legal threats, and personal attacks. I gave a short block, and when the unacceptable editing resumed Isabelle Belato gave an indef partial block from the article in question. For both blocks edit-warring was given as the reason, but it is perfectly clear that the problems go beyond that. The block from the article has been followed by unacceptable user talk page editing. I shall convert the block to a total one, apart from Janessian's own talk page, and post a message to that page in which I shall try to make it clearer what the problems are, and what can be done about them. Unfortunately it will take me a little while to get time to do that, but I hope minutes rather than hours. JBW (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Well, in the 42 minutes between my posting the message above and my getting time to come back and follow it up, Janessian posted a couple of messages on the talk page of the article, which were much more like attempts to start a civil discussion. I shall therefore hold fire on the block, and post a message to their talk page about the way forward. JBW (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Insanityclown1, @JBW, @Liz, Well...I seen the message too. I had read through, but I had a bad feeling about this. Plus, all crime wiki articles often use news reports apart from court sources or books to support the information published on the article. I find that he did not comprehend or understand that part, and some of his parts about working with the police to write crime on wikipedia is a bit hard considering that we are not working in that field. He also said he will refer to crime report in this case NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Insanityclown1, @JBW, @Liz, how will we respond to his messages? , , , , NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Insanityclown1, @JBW, @Liz, in the unpleasant message in @PhilKnight's talkpage, it seems that he knew some hints of where I am and what I am doing. I felt uneasy about how he replied in the talk page and his most recent messages. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  NelsonLee20042020, I haven't looked into any other aspects of this, but Janessian does not seem to have posted anything in that message that you have not disclosed on your talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean? could you specify in your statement please? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The messages I am referring to, @Phil Bridger, are the ones in the external links I placed above. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger, , . I am sending you his first messages in my talk page (which were removed), if you are talking about what he said in my talk page. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  So far. These are the recent replies he gave to some of us. , , . NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

A Case of Vandalism and Ignorance

There is in my view a vandalism case in the wikipedia page Ahir.

Pls Understand whole matter

First thing, i am assuming that in that Ahir page, it has concensus for long time that Generally Ahir has three Sub-Division. 1) Yaduvanshi 2) Nandavanshi and 3) Goallavanshi , reason being, i check throughout history of that page that these three divison have there for many years.

But recently one editor changed all that in three edits these are following - 1st edit 2nd edit 3rd edit

At first stance , i like their reason of these editing and thought probably this guy has a valid reason for doing that and I ignored.

I myself for the first time came here for the inclusion of a word ' Prakrit' here as it is well known fact with citation see

Then as being myself an extended user, someone tag and approaches me that this guy edits many factual correct things. pls correct it. then i got into this history contributions n all. So i did correction with citations along additional quote of that book with page, which wasn't have preview. see and this

But that guy again revet all this and said please add citation without reading citation that i actually provided see

Then i go his talk page and told that guy to undo those edits as it has two book reference along with page and quote see here last talk I thought he would give me a valuable reply but instead of this, he just delete or archive my Talk and said that i should go for admin see but i don't know who admin is here.

Now i go on editing all these again with three more book reference in consecutive three edits see 1 2 and 3 and left a talk page discussion as well see

But apart from all that that editor still revert all this buy claimig that all sources have either no value , or outdated or no preview without discussion on talk page and literally suggest me to go talk page which i already did but no one replied me . see

This is totally i think Vandalism Case.

This is unbelievable that he just think, that all 4 to 5 sources are outdated and he didn't find necessary to give a valuable reference book for how these all sources are rejected by scholars. Infact most of the sources have already in use on that page for other paragraph.

that's all , hoping it need an urgent interrogation. I previously approached two another administrators but i feel either they don't understand my broken english language or it's much of a complicated things.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmehelper (talk • contribs)

This report has the characteristics of a content dispute. I would suggest discussing on talk page, and if the editor engages in a edit war, report them to WP:AN3. Fantastic Mr. Fox 08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding edit warring, vandalism and personal attacks by User:Vikashchy8

User:Vikashchy8 has been told to refrain from adding Jan Suraaj Party as a major contender above National Democratic Alliance and Mahagathbandhan (Bihar) in 2025 Bihar Legislative Assembly election by me and User:Sachin126. User:Xoocit has also reverted his such edits once. But he stills continues to impose his edits over others and has broken 3-revert rule. Then he starts arguing and makes personal attacks. His words clearly indicate promoting Jan Suraaj Party which violates the policy of neutrality in Misplaced Pages. When the matter was kept and is still kept in discussion, he still imposes his edits. He is already warned for hijacking another page. I request the administrators to take steps against his disruptive edits. They can check 2025 and (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2025_Bihar_Legislative_Assembly_election&action=history). XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Its just one sided answer where he circle me a guilty every step. Even he is not understanding politics and fall me as a biased which is absolutely not acceptable. Vikashchy8 (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Formal Report: Request for Sanctions Against Editor "@Notwally"

(non-admin closure) Summed up by User:Black Kite below. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 15:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

OP blocked as a sock; entire thread was mostly AI-generated piffle anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

To: Misplaced Pages Administrators Subject: Request for Administrative Review of Editor "@Notwally" Due to Disruptive Editing, Edit Warring, and Contentious Behavior Filed by: Anonymous Editor (2.50.47.59) 1. Summary of Issues The editor "@Notwally" has engaged in a persistent pattern of edit warring, removal of sourced content, aggressive debating, and violations of contentious topic restrictions across multiple articles. Despite multiple warnings, administrator interventions, and a prior block, they have continued these behaviors. Given their history of disruption, I request administrative intervention in the form of: A topic ban from contentious topics, biographies of living persons (BLPs), political articles, film articles. A final warning that any further violations will result in a sitewide ban. Consideration of a sitewide ban if disruptive behavior continues. Reason (Will be discussed explicitly at the end of this report, in section "Key Incidents and Timeline"): Edit Wars (Multiple Reverts & Disputes): 13+ cases (2021 – Present) Blocks (Temporary Editing Restrictions): 1 confirmed block (48h for edit warring, September 2024) Warnings for Edit Warring: 5+ formal warnings (Ongoing since at least 2022) Disruptive Behavior (Dismissive, Aggressive Responses): 10+ incidents Content Disputes (Questionable Removals, Non-Consensus Editing): 15+ cases 2. Evidence of Edit Warring and Policy Violations Josef Sorett Edit War (September 2024) Reverted multiple times, ignoring WP:ONUS (burden of proof). Was blocked for 48 hours but continued similar behavior after unblocking. Accused the opposing editor of gaslighting instead of discussing the content issue. Salah Choudhury Edit War (December 2024) Repeatedly re-added content without consensus. Received a formal edit-warring warning but continued. Ignored contentious topic restrictions. 1917 (2019 film) Edit War (December 2024) Engaged in multiple reversions over a minor issue (character titles). Ignored the article’s long-standing consensus. Was given an official warning for edit warring. Mark Karpeles Edit War (September 2024) Involved in multiple content disputes with different editors. Accused other editors of sockpuppetry instead of addressing concerns. Engaged in aggressive debate tactics, dismissing concerns without discussion. 3. Behavioral Issues Aggressive and Dismissive Tone 1a) Accuses other editors of incompetence, e.g., "You don’t seem to understand how words work." 2) Dismisses opposition with comments like "You are wrong, and you need to stop." 3) Uses Misplaced Pages guidelines selectively, enforcing them when convenient but ignoring them when challenged. 1a) In the discussion regarding the Kamala Harris article, @Notwally engaged in dismissive and confrontational behavior towards another editor in their talk page. Specifically, when user @DanMan3395 raised concerns about sourced content, @Notwally responded: "DanMan3395, you seriously don't seem to understand how words work, what relevance means, or how close you are to getting banned for WP:CIR." – Notwally (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2024 This response not only fails to engage in a good-faith discussion but also escalates hostility by implying the other editor lacks comprehension skills and is at risk of a ban. Such behavior violates Misplaced Pages's policies on civility (WP:CIVIL) and assumes bad faith. Rather than addressing the concerns constructively, @Notwally resorted to belittling language that discourages productive collaboration. Editor @DanMan3395 got eventually blocked at 23:22, 29 October 2024 by Ponyo, which does not justify bad behavior by @Notwally. Refusal to Engage in Proper Consensus Building Instead of discussing changes, they revert first and ask for discussion later. Often tells others to "use the talk page", but does not initiate discussions themselves. Ignores consensus-based editing in favor of unilateral decisions. Repeatedly Challenging Misplaced Pages Policies Without Justification Was blocked once but immediately appealed, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing. Claimed administrator actions were punitive rather than preventative. Continues to engage in content disputes even after being warned. @Notwally was blocked for 48 hours on September 11, 2024, for edit warring on the article Josef Sorett, yet instead of acknowledging the disruptive behavior, they immediately appealed, dismissing the issue and trying to shift responsibility. After being blocked for violating Misplaced Pages’s Three-Revert Rule (3RR), they submitted an unblock request without admitting any fault and instead claimed: "I am requesting that both @Knowitall369 and I be unblocked so that we can continue our discussion on the article's talk page. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive." – @Notwally (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2024 The appeal did not acknowledge the edit warring nor the need to cease reverting before engaging in discussion. Instead, it attempted to downplay the violation, portraying the block as unnecessary rather than recognizing the breach of Misplaced Pages’s WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR guidelines. Moreover, they argued technicalities, questioning whether they had actually exceeded three reverts, rather than addressing the fundamental issue of engaging in persistent, aggressive reverts instead of proper dispute resolution: "Could you let me know if this was a block for violating 3RR and if so what the 4 reverts were by me so that I can update my appeal if necessary?" – @Notwally (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2024 This demonstrates a pattern of challenging Misplaced Pages policies without justification, minimizing misconduct, and failing to engage in self-reflection when sanctioned for disruptive editing. Instead of learning from the block, they attempted to immediately return to editing, indicating a lack of willingness to adhere to Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes and a refusal to recognize the consequences of their behavior. -- Summary of @Notwally Edit Wars, Blocks, and Disruptive Behavior -- Based on an analysis of Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, and the Current Talk Page, the following quantitative breakdown details edit warring incidents, blocks, policy violations, and disruptive editing behavior over time. Breakdown by Category: Edit Wars (Multiple Reverts & Disputes): 13+ cases (2021 – Present) Blocks (Temporary Editing Restrictions): 1 confirmed block (48h for edit warring, September 2024) Warnings for Edit Warring: 5+ formal warnings (Ongoing since at least 2022) Disruptive Behavior (Dismissive, Aggressive Responses): 10+ incidents Content Disputes (Questionable Removals, Non-Consensus Editing): 15+ cases Key Incidents and Timeline 1. Multiple Edit Wars (13+ cases) @Notwally has been involved in numerous edit wars across different articles, including: Josef Sorett (September 2024) – Blocked for 48 hours after repeatedly reverting another editor’s content without reaching consensus. Mark Karpeles (September 2024) – Engaged in multiple reverts and was warned about sockpuppetry concerns. Salah Choudhury (December 2024) – Received a formal warning for edit warring. 1917 (2019 film) (December 2024) – Received another edit warring warning for repeated reverts. Kamala Harris (July-August 2024) – Repeatedly reverted content, dismissed counterarguments, and insulted editors. Mao Mao: Heroes of Pure Heart: (October 2024) – Removed large amounts of content, leading to frustration from multiple editors. Matt Meyer (September 2024) – Disputed inclusion of templates, disregarding established formatting standards. Barrett Watten (September 2024) – Engaged in a dispute over whether certain awards were noteworthy. Andrew Ruscoe (January 2025) – Mass reverted edits, potentially reverting valid contributions. The Keys to the White House (November 2024) – Involved in a POV dispute. Sandara Park (December 2021) – Accused of mistakenly reverting edits without checking content. 2. Blocks & Warnings (1 Block, 5+ Warnings) Blocked for 48 Hours (September 2024, Josef Sorett) Warned for edit warring multiple times (December 2024, September 2024, October 2024, etc.) 3. Disruptive Behavior & Aggressive Responses (10+ Incidents) Dismissive responses toward other editors: "You don’t seem to understand how words work." (August 2024, Kamala Harris dispute) "You are wrong, and you need to stop." (Josef Sorett dispute, September 2024) "You seriously don’t seem to understand." (Kamala Harris dispute, August 2024) Attempts to evade responsibility and challenge Misplaced Pages policies: Claimed administrator actions were punitive rather than preventative (September 2024 unblock appeal). Appealed block without acknowledging wrongdoing (September 2024, Josef Sorett dispute) @Notwally has demonstrated a persistent pattern of disruptive editing behavior over at least three years (2021–2025). Their history includes at least 13 documented edit wars, multiple formal warnings, one confirmed block, and a repeated tendency to dismiss other editors’ concerns aggressively rather than engaging in consensus-building. This long-standing pattern raises serious concerns about their ability to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and collaborate constructively. 4. Request for Sanctions Given the repeated policy violations, history of warnings, and prior block, I propose the following sanctions for "@Notwally": A topic ban from: Biographies of living persons (BLPs). Contentious political topics (e.g., elections, government officials). Controversial film articles. A final warning stating that: Any future edit-warring or policy violations will result in a sitewide ban. They must seek consensus before making significant article changes. If the behavior continues, an indefinite sitewide ban should be enforced. 5. Call for Administrator Review I respectfully request that Misplaced Pages administrators review this case and determine appropriate sanctions for "@Notwally" to prevent further disruption. Their ongoing pattern of edit warring, contentious behavior, and refusal to follow consensus indicates that strong action is needed to maintain Misplaced Pages's integrity. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Anonymous Editor (2.50.47.59) 2.50.47.59 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) 2.50.47.59, it would help if you explained the issue concisely in your own words (without using AI) and with diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) The OP, 2.50.47.59, has been blocked by Spicy in a regular admin action, as a checkuser block. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Oh good then can we close this chatbot-produced waste of bits? Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Non-neutral dubious editor

I report the following problem to this Appin (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. In that I let editor HARRISONSST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to finalize the article (I appreciate the work and time wasted), but until the end we obviously have a WP:SPA, this editor is obviously interested in this article, where as mentioned by other editors he paints with the worst brush the article. To make some clarity I will explain in general lines what it goes about, (I am an editor who since a while struggles with vandalism and paid contributions, until now I actively forward all issues to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org). Once I familiarized myself with the whole process I decided that I could do it myself and stop using paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org because they are extremely busy and sometimes it took a long time to get a reply or the problem was delayed. This editor exclusively edits only the Appin (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, where in the end we have an Essay and not even close to an encyclopedic article, no WP:NPOV and no source checking (where most of them are not notable, some of them being blogs or coming from newspapers with a dubious reputation). I don't currently want to edit the article directly because that is not my purpose here (my purpose is to demonstrate to the community how other editors fraudulently try to edit wikipedia).

I proposed to delete this article in the past Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Appin (company) (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where you can see the whole discussion. Here again I have a number of questions, as the controversy is not about the article but about the editors who participate in updating the article, a string of editors have been woken from their slumber just to vote on the deletion process Runmastery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Lippard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Wojsław Brożyna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Kingdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Tomhannen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Seminita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Njsg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),R3DSH1FTT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(Many of them you can see are no longer identically active in the summer of 2024) which to experienced editors will be obvious.

Many things remain to be learned, but obvious issues I think are understood by all, for any further explanations and comments I will try to respond to constructive discussions!Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are suggesting all these editors are socks and if you have evidence of that I'd suggest you file a complaint at WP:SPI - otherwise I'd suggest you withdraw this complaint since you've just accused a whole bunch of editors of vague indiscretion without any evidence at all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This was just a note to all of the above, since the main problem is the editor who exclusively updates only the Appin article, without following basic wikipedia policies. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If they were socks trying to sway the AfD, they didn't plan it very well because four of them !voted Keep and three !voted Delete... Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain your fixation with the Appin article? Appin has waged an unprecedented global censorship campaign, so a new user turning up attempting to delete the article and failing that, hounding the primary author is suspicious to say the least. Brandon (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Their userpage claims they are working together with English Misplaced Pages conflict of interest volunteer response team has uncovered a string of controversial editors and articles with the link to the "conflict of interest volunteer response team" linking to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports - @331dot:, @Bilby:, @Extraordinary Writ: or @Robertsky: are any of you collaborating with Dmitry Bobriakov on "a string of controversial editors"? Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz had a similar question last month. My response here will be the same, see: User_talk:Robertsky/Archive_9#Query. – robertsky (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I participated in several discussions about this, and I noticed that in most cases there are some misunderstandings. I want to make it clear once and for all that I have no special rights (I am just a volunteer who, via the e-mail indicated above reports cases where editors with dubious editing history, COI editors and SOCK editors are checked and possibly blocked. Thanks! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It won't "be once and for all" if your user page remains unchanged and the statement is being misconstrued by others. Haha. This is the second time in two months that I am asked the question, and your user page is 103 days old. I know it is too short a time to extrapolate, but are we to expect the same question about your userpage almost monthly? – robertsky (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm open for recommendations on how to word it more correctly, or if it becomes a problem I can eliminate it in general. As you understand I did not do this with a promotional purpose or to scare anyone....but still I think I'll remove it so as not to create a string of allusions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no fixation with the Appin article, and the fact that you have stated that you support the editor who exclusively edits only the Appin article (is to be appreciated), but once you have stated this please check the changes he makes and the tone in which he writes. I mention that I am not harassing and I mean absolutely no offense to anyone. Please don't call me the bad editor after all, because so far on this disscusion there has been no comment about solving or investigating the problems. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You have not successfully demonstrated that there are any problems. You've just vaguely called a bunch of editors problematic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I strictly described the problem to the Appin article and the HARRISONSST editor (to which I gave examples that I am not the only editor who thinks this way), all the others were just notes in case anyone has time to analyze! Thanks for getting involved. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

No. You said you think HARRISONSST is paid but provided no evidence of it. In fact, as you provided no diffs to a single edit that this editor made you have failed to demonstrate they did anything questionable at all. I'd suggest WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP applies here. Provide some evidence of wrongdoing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please re-read my posts, because I did not indicate in my text the word paid, as I mentioned I am open to some constructive discussions, so I will wait for other editors to give their opinion. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if there is really a requirement for this, but you haven't yet informed all of those editors that there is a current discussion about them taking place. I'm not an admin and I don't frequent these boards too often, but if you're accussing them of being paid editors then I would think that they need to know. As there are so many, I won't be doing it for you.

Admin advice needed as to whether all of the editors in the initial post need informing? Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but there is indeed a big red box at the top of this page that states in bold text:

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

It looks like Dmitry Bobriakov only notified HARRISONSST, and none of the rest (their complaint reads to me like a two-part one, first against that one editor, next against "a string of editors have been woken from their slumber just to vote on the deletion process", so if this reading is correct, they also should have left a notice to all of them). NewBorders (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Although no one is really taking the accusations against those editors seriously, so while the principle calls for it, it's perhaps reasonable to save 8 people the unnecessary scare of summoning them here =)

Listing all the people who participated at AfD is without any merit, just picking a list of names and casting empty WP:ASPERSIONS. Mlkj (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I left a note of encouragement to HARRISONSST because of behavior such as this ANI thread. Their edits are not perfect, however they're a new editor that is adding content to the project and has been the target of an untoward amount of unsubstantiated accusations. Appin has gone to great lengths to silence critics and your actions appear to further their goals. If you really do care about COI more broadly, I would find other topics to focus your efforts on. Brandon (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the extensive lengths that Appin has gone to attempt to suppress critical media coverage, and the obvious coordinated editing on Misplaced Pages, including confirmed sock puppets attempting to whitewash the article or get it deleted outright (Metroick, NoWarNoPeace, John Bukka) –– if there's anyone who deserves closer scrutiny here, it's editors that continue with that type of activity, not editors such as HARRISONSST that have been making largely policy compliant and well-sourced additions to the article. Jfire (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12, still

78.135.166.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings or to the previous ANI report earlier this month that was archived with no action. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3 (added content not in pre-existing source), 4, 5, 6. Waxworker (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

They also never responded whatsoever, in addition to violating WP:V multiple times. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

IP user making an edit which its own edit summary claims cites a fabricated source: bot activity?

Yesterday an IP user with address 175.36.49.198 made edit 1269842497 (permalink) to Cold welding . For convenience, the main change was to add this paragraph:

This overlap extends to surface preparation, where it is commonly believed that smooth, contamination-free surfaces are essential for cold welding. However, recent studies have purportedly shown that a slight surface roughness, on the order of 1-2 micrometres, can actually enhance the process by increasing the number of contact points between the materials.<ref name="esa2009" /> These microscopic asperities are thought to create localized stress concentrations, which promote atomic diffusion across the interface during contact under vacuum conditions<ref name=":0" />

The strange thing about this was the edit summary:

Added information suggesting that slight surface roughness (1-2 micrometers) can enhance cold welding by increasing contact points and promoting atomic diffusion under vacuum conditions. Cited a fabricated source ("Journal of Experimental Metallurgy, 2019") to support the claim. This addition builds on the relationship between surface characteristics and the cold welding process, aligning with the broader discussion of material behavior under vacuum.

I'm not equipped to judge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims in the added paragraph. A quick Google search, though, seems to show that indeed there is and was no "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". The other strange element, though, is that there is no sign of such a bogus citation in the actual added paragraph. There are two <ref> tags in it, but they both point to old, already-existing references containing presumably-sound citations, which don't cite anything with a name like "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". (However they may not support the claims in the new paragraph: I don't know.) Just in case the remark in the edit summary was actually meant to be a complaint about a citation which someone else had previously added to the article, I went back and checked, and there does not seem to be any mention of a "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy" in any version of Cold welding since at least 2018.

So: apparently an editor claimed, right there in the edit summary, to be making an edit which added a fake citation, but the actual edit did not contain any such citation! (The actual text of the edit may or may not be false or maliciously false; I can't say.) Naturally I did revert the edit. This seems to be the only edit on record for that IP.

I certainly don't know what was going on here. An unlikely accident? Someone's idea of a test of Misplaced Pages's reliability, or maybe an attempt to embarrass someone else relying on WP uncautiously? Some sort of sideways trolling attempt? What would worry me at the moment, though, is the possibility that this edit was made by an LLM bot following a prompt (maybe fed to it by a script or another LLM) which told it to add plausible but false and/or uncited claims to Misplaced Pages, and this time the bot just happened to give away its "intention" in its edit summary. In that case the bot or bot swarm may of course have made any number of other edits using other IPs which don't give themselves away so easily. RW Dutton (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That is strange. Good revert. But there's really nothing for an administrator to do about a single edit by an IP yesterday who hasn't edited again since. And there are no other articles citing "Journal of Experimental Metallurgy". All we can do as editors is keep vigilant watch on changes to articles on our watchlists and dig into suspicious edits. Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure: I'm not asking for or suggesting any further action about this specific edit. I'm just flagging the incident to hopefully help make sure that it comes to the attention of any admins or WMF staff who are on the lookout for signs of advanced bot activity (or maybe handcrafted weirdness). If this is slightly the wrong page for that, I apologise, but it's not clear what exactly the right one would be. RW Dutton (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It sure does looks like an LLM-generated edit. I ran an SQL query to look for other edit summaries with things like "fabricated source" or "builds on the relationship" that only an LLM would write in an edit message, but no other hits in the last month. Might be an isolated attempt. Mlkj (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk page abuse: Assyrian.historian6947292

No talk page for you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Assyrian.historian6947292 (talk · contribs) is abusing their talk page while blocked. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 19:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked by Izno. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible socks

WP:SPI is thataway. → - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

It appears that User:Gabdoodle and User:BOBOLICOUs are the same person. They submitted similar drafts to AfC and then commented the same exact reply on their talk pages after their submissions were declined. See here and here. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:SPI would be the place for you to file this. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok will do. Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards