Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:05, 1 March 2017 editJobas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,399 editsm Done← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:19, 17 January 2025 edit undoLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators768,917 edits →Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile: Comment 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|1=vandalism|action=edit|small=yes|expiry=03:49, 4 February 2017}}}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK____TOC__{{clear}} {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 800K |maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 947 |counter = 1176
|algo = old(72h) |algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}} }}
{{stack end}}
<!-- <!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics==
|format=%%i
|age=72
|index=no
|numberstart=826
|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}sk
|minarchthreads= 1
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 7
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
}} --><!--
-----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do not place links in the section headers.
(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
----------------------------------------------------------
Entries may be refactored based on the above.
------------------------------------------------------------>


]'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:
== OVERLINKING and redirect problems ==
{{userlinks|Fmadd}}
{{u|Fmadd}} is a (relatively) new user on Misplaced Pages, but has already created quite a big stir. In the past two weeks alone they have created redirects and ] pages (and a total of since joining). While clearly they are not ''all'' bad, the majority are somewhat nonsensical (such as ], ], and a couple of not-actually-DAB pages that have already been deleted). From looking down their creation list, it almost appears as if they say "I don't know what this means", put a wikilink, and then attempts to shoehorn in a redirect to something that is vaguely related.


Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
I was going to drop this and walk away, but after seeing three subsequent similar posts at the user's page I feel obligated to bring it up here. {{oldid2|765618749|In the last two months}} there have been 5 threads on their talk page regarding overlinking and a half-dozen notices left for pages listed for deletion. They have displayed a rather alarming ] attitude, brushing off attempts at correction to things like "]", "]", and finishing it all up with "]" (hint: when a dozen different editors say it's problematic, it might just be problematic). A similar discussion at {{oldid2|765591556#New.28ish.29_user_being_slightly_too_BOLD|WT:PHYS}} has also been started, with similar results. Minutes after I nominated {{-r|Organic dye}} for deletion (it had zero incoming links) they in a clearly ] response. Similarly, they brushed off being told that linking to dab pages like ] was ].


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
Fmadd is clearly not getting the point, which is why we're here. The ] needs to stop, and the wanton creation of barely-usable redirects needs to stop. While we shouldn't just delete ''every'' redirect they've created, there are a bunch of them that could use some serious scrutiny and a ''ton'' of overlinking that needs to be looked at. ] (]) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


WP:NPA
:I have had conversations as well. To be fair: {{u|Fmadd}} is a relatively new user and has not yet fully grasped that Misplaced Pages is a community project that works by consensus. He thinks Misplaced Pages should operate the way he wants it to, not the way it does. I do not believe any sanction is warranted at the present time, but what is required is someone with a bit more clout than us humble users to firmly explain how things work around here. With any luck, that should solve the problem. ] (]) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::I don't think that being relatively new is a good reason to avoid sanctions here. 10 months isn't that new, especially with 10,000 edits (I've been on here for a little over 10 months and 11,000 edits, and I understand consensus, it's a fairly easy thing to understand). 1/3 of his edits were in the past month, but you should have a general idea on how Misplaced Pages works with that number of edits. ] ] 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
:::I'm a bit bothered by the fact that although ] has commented on their talk page about the discussion here, and has been very busy editing, they haven't responded here. ] ] 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I thought this was a discussion between admins. ] (]) 17:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::All this fretting about over-linking, when it turns out there's already a script that can change the colour of links (e.g. .. controversial pages can be marked and they no longer 'compete for the users attention'). I '''said''' I was amazed it was contraversial, because '''I can imagine there are technical solutions'''. With whats there now you can indeed de-highlight 'contraversial' articles. I bet the script or server side software could be further modified to mark certain types of page 'trivial' within a domain (hence blanked out by default) (e.g. all physics articles dont highlight trivial physics terms, all ) etc. I got the impression this is more about a 'priestly cult' mindset. It's only by arguing I managed to discover the highlighting script (several days in, he knew about it all along..) ] (]) 17:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fmadd/linkclassifier.css there's an example, I was able to modify that link-highlighter script to display 'articles marked for deletion' blanked out. ] (]) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Profanity
:Fmadd, has made other kinds of problematic edits as well, see ]. ] ] 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::Seems like there might be some competency issues lurking about. If someone informs you that you are causing a problem, it's not a ''normal'' response to search for a ]. ] 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:::lol. as I thought, priestly cult mentality. Instead of improving a system, some people prefer to nit-pick, criticise others and so on. Thats why it was only many days into the discussion that someone finally told me there '''*is* actually already a way to colour code links by category'''. It would be ''easy'' to have a category of 'exploratory links', invisible by default, which are only visible if a user goes out of their way to highlight them with a custom colour scheme. Thats the first step, but imagine if wikipedia had a concept of 'prerequisites', where you could flag content according to what knowledge is pre-requisite, and ''dynamically'' blank content depending on what a user has clarified they already know. ] (]) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::{{u|Fmadd}}, you're missing the forest for the trees. We're telling you that per the ], the ] guidelines, and (based on other conversations) ] and ] conventions, you should not be creating all of these redirects, and ''you'' are saying we need to start colour-coding our links better. In other words, ''you're missing the bloody point''. ] (]) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
::::: missing the point... ''there's already a facility for colour coding''. My intuition was, "it is surprising that we fret about overlinking". There must be a way to improve the system such that contributing information is never a problem. ] (]) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::No ], I think ''you're the one'' missing the point. If we wrote a script that flipped all our articles around for us, then we could write everything backwards, and it would automatically fix it. But instead you want to be close minded and demand that we conform to your cult of ''directionality''. ] 19:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::: nice straw man there. I'm talking about colour coding (''which already exists'') not writing articles backwards. ] (]) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::] ] 19:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
*Fmadd, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the central point here, which has ''nothing whatsoever'' to do with color coding. The concern is that redirects you are creating should not exist at all and you are adding unnecessary links in articles. You may be surprised that this is a real concern, but it is, and brushing it off by suggesting the rest of us use a script or whatever to mitigate it is not the correct response. You don't have to agree with the concern, but you are expected to respect the established policy and consensus on this issue. If you'd like to change the overlinking policy you are welcome to try, but unless and until such an effort is succesful you should abide by it. ] (]) 00:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*Fmadd, I agree with Beeblebrox. I'm going to ask you to stop adding links and creating redirects against current policy. You are very welcome to argue for changes in those policies, and to propose changes to the software to allow multi coloured links to facilitate those changes. But until you achieve a consensus that those policies should change, you <u>must</u> comply with them. Deliberately editing in contravention of policies just because you don't agree with them is disruptive. If you continue to do so, you will blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
::I also think Fmadd just needs to '''slow it way down''' in general. They are editing so fast it is impossible to conceive that they are really thinking things through. I see formatting errors and creation of double redirects in just their last few edits, with no sign that they are even aware of them. There's no rush, and it's always better to think about what you are doing ''before'' you do it. ] (]) 00:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::::@]: I rather fear that the double redirects are intentional, not accidental creations - see my comment below... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I've left them a warning. Regardless of if they're right or wrong (though they're wrong) editing practices should be checked until a resolution is reached. ] (]) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
Here's another example of the sort of problem this is creating - see ]. This appears to have been created by Fmadd on the basis that it will one day be a page with content (despite the fact that the disambiguator "(general)" is not used). See incoming links: Numerous articles have had their links changed to point to ]. In addition several redirects have been changed to point to that page, apparently to deliberately create double redirects. This seems to be part of a master plan to restructure our articles about ] and related topics. But instead of getting consensus to change that structure first, Fmadd has created a "web of redirects" to accommodate his vision of how the articles should be structured. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:As a note, I reinstated the declined speedy and cleaned up that mess. Triple redirects! WTF. ] (]) 01:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*A thought regarding this incredibly disruptive editing - their edits have to be undone individually; we can't just unlink all links to their silly redirects because they used to point to valid targets... what a friggin nightmare. ] (]) 01:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*:I've read some (not all) of the discussions with Fmadd, and my take is that this is a user who not only doesn't get it, he doesn't '''''want''''' to get it. He's even trotted out that old saw, the cabal of admins, in the form of a "priestly cult". Frankly, I don't believe more argumentation with him is going to stop him doing what he intends to do, so I think it's time for admins to consider a sanction of some sort to stop him. My first choice would be an indef block that would not be lifted until he promised to undo the mess he made, but more kind-hearted souls might prefer a topic ban on creating redirects and making wikilinks - I just feel it's likely that he wouldn't follow it, and we'd be back at an indef block. ] (]) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*::{{ec}} see below. ] (]) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


Unicivil
===Question 1: block or no?===
Slight edit conflict with BMK above, but good timing I guess. First question is easy - if Fmadd refuses to accept the requests made here to alter their behaviour, do we block, or just impose a tban on creating redirects (i.e. a page-creation ban)? ] (]) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''tban''' on page creation. I think a while actually making productive edits will allow Fmadd to see why we do things the way we do. After six months or so they're welcome to request the return of their page-creation abilities. ] (]) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*Blocked per their replies here. If this discussion "destroyed their faith in humanity" Misplaced Pages probably isn't for them. ] (]) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''support''' indef. This isn't going to go well. ] (]) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Topic ban''' on page creation for about 6 months, where violating the topic ban is grounds for an immediate indefinite block. ] (] | ]) 07:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
===Question 2: all those pesky redirects===
Fmadd has made a pretty big mess. The question becomes what to do about their past editing history. I see two main options. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)</small>


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
:Could whoever posted the above please sign their post? ] (]) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
::Added {{tlx|Unsigned}}. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Contact on user page attempted
====Proposal 1 (slap on the wrist)====
Fmadd's past redirect actions are (mostly) overlooked. Interested parties are welcome to comb through them and RFD/delete/edit/restructure as desired, but no "official" action takes place. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)</small>


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
:Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? ] (]) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
::Added {{tlx|Unsigned}}. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
====Proposal 2 (more involved response)====
Fmadd's edits are all looked over by some sort of task force. Unnecessary redirects (such as {{-r|Particle physics experiment}} and {{-r|India gained independence}}) are deleted and the pages that linked to them are reverted to their pre-redirect status. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
* '''Support''' and willing to help out. There are just too many ridiculous redirects to tie up at RFD. I think a well-documented task force page (similar to the SvG case) would allow for transparency and some measure of REFUND should a reasonable redirect be deleted. ] (]) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*This is pretty much where we are at. Their stubborn refusal to even try and see the issue has now earned them a block, but there's still a mess to clean up. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 02:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
*I will freely admit that I don't understand Fmadd's master plan, so I'd be useless in trying to help undo it - but let me ask this: is it not possible to simply run down his edits in the opposite order from which they were made, and arrive at a state before Fmass started his work? Yes, surely we would lose some edits which were actual improvements, but that seems like a small price to pay. ] (]) 06:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
**{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, I wanted to propose a "]" Proposal 3 wherein we do just that - roll back everything, delete everything, and pick up the pieces afterwards. I wasn't sure how well that would be taken, so I didn't propose it. I suppose the worst that can happen is it isn't acceptable, so I'll do so now. ] (]) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? ] (]) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
*:Added {{tlx|Unsigned}}. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
====Proposal 3 (nuclear option)====
Roll back all edits, delete all pages. Small team to go through and undelete the few pages that might have been useful. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)</small>


: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)
*I would support this if it was changed a little bit:
::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)
:1. List all created pages in userspace
::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)
:2. Roll back all edits that were not on pages this user created
:::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)
:3. Review all pages in the userspace
::::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)
:4. Delete all unapproved pages in the userspace
:::::{{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)
:We did the same thing with ] (with the exception of number 2), and it worked well, I think the same approach will work here. ] ]║] 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - ] (]) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::That would work. I've already started compiling a list at ]. I completely agree with rolling back all of their mainspace edits, since 99% of the time it appears all they were doing was creating a link to an odd redirect. ] (]) 14:30, 16 February 2017 (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)
:::In relation to point 2, I should note that Fmadd is sometimes correct that the links should be changed. The problem is that many did not need changing or, if they did, he often made the problem worse. We will lose some useful work if we mass revert his edits instead of reviewing each of them, but I estimate only about 10% based on what I've looked at in relation to ]. For example, there were some instances in which he changed articles that linked to that page when they would more naturally refer to ] (i.e. the process of controlling electronics from a distance, not the device that enables someone to do it). However, instead of linking directly to ], he redirected ] to ] (which probably makes sense and shouldn't be reverted), and linked to that redirect (which doesn't). <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 14:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::::{{u|WJBscribe}}, I concur that there is a ''small'' proportion of their edits that were actually useful, but given that I spent an hour untangling the "remote control" issue last night and ended up only keeping four edits out of about 100, I'd say in this case we ''should'' throw the baby out with the bathwater, if only for the sanity of those draining the tub. ] (]) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::I concur with Primfac, Gamebuster19901, and WJBscribe. This is the best option. ] ] 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::As I mentioned above, I support the nuclear option, given the downside seems so low. ] (]) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I'd support this iff the percentage of good contributions reported above is accurate. {{yo|Primefac}}, yow is the listing coming? Do you have something the community can look at? ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::{{u|Tazerdadog}}, I've gotten ] into a reasonable shape. I've sorted the redirects by incoming link count, which will make proofing them a bit easier. I haven't sorted through their articles yet, but that's not quite as important. ] (]) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (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)
After a spot-check of my own, I have to disagree with the assessment of Primefac and WJBScribe. I found that about 50% of the redirects were a net positive, especially with small tweaks applied. Therefore I have to '''Oppose''' this option. A more detailed review is necessary. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
:{{u|Tazerdadog}}, are you willing to support option 2? ] (]) 01:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
::I support mass revert, unless somebody else wants to wade through it all in more detail. ] (]) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Option 2, possibly combined with X3 is the appropriate response in my opinion. 50% is an unacceptable error rate, and based on my evaluation both a nuke and a slap on the wrist would have that error rate. I'd be willing to wade through a significant chunk of it. ] (]) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:My 10% figure above was stated to be based upon review of ] based redirects. If link changes/redirections in other topic areas show as much as 50% positive edits, then I agree that this calls for a more nuanced step-by-step review of the edits. Such an approach would also allow editors to correct occasions where Fmadd identified a problem but applied the wrong solution - the optimal result is neither a revert nor keep Fmadd's edits in those instances! <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 11:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? ] (]) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
*:Added {{tlx|Unsigned}}. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


:Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. ] (]) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion on the above questions and proposals===
*'''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)
{{u|Fmadd}}, I guess this is the part where I ask you if you're willing to take into consideration the views expressed in this discussion as well as on the various talk pages you've been involved with. To summarize a few of the points:
*:For context, ] is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling (])] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*Decrease the number of redirects you create. Start discussions to see if they're necessary. Pipe otherwise.
*::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)
*Slow down on the editing. Thing don't need to happen immediately. Finding out an idea isn't the best after two days is a lot easier to deal with if you then don't have to go back and fix fifty pages afterwards.
*:::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)
*Start discussions. Yes, I mentioned this above, but this goes for things like moving ] unilaterally. Consider all page moves to be potentially contentious, and ask if it's a good idea first.
*::::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)
There are other points mentioned above, but these are the major ones. Does this sound reasonable? ] (]) 02:29, 16 February 2017 (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)
: well I can take a break from this, and amuse myself somewhere else for a while. I'm not going to stay focussed on making major changes if it takes several days of discussion.. I just wont bother. thats why I liked blasting my way through one issue at a time. If you dont like redirects then my workflow can't be used here. I might as well give up. '''Thanks for destroying what little faith in humanity I had.'''. they're just redirects.. and you have to get all "priestly-cult"/"control freak" over it. The point of redirects (or any other abstractions) is breaking problems down into smaller pieces, at which point solutions crystallise out more easily. Tension in "the plan" or ambiguity is just a sign of something else to fix. I've seen this situation many times before. Some people have more to gain from problems, than solutions. ] (]) 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::Ok, that's enough. Deploying block hammer. ] (]) 02:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC) *:Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. ] (]) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::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)
:::{{nao}} If Fmadd hasn't been here before under another name, I'll eat my aussie hat. ] (]) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Extended discussion}}
::::He seems fond of the "priestly cult" meme - anyone recall another editor using that? ] (]) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
:::::"Easier to make mass changes and argue later" seems to be a hallmark, is their work too ] (]) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
::::If Fmadd isn't already back as ], I'll eat my non-Aussie hat (it's got fewer corks). ] (]) 14:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
* As much as I've been opposed to similar solutions in the past, I'm really leaning toward the nuclear option, at least on anything that's purely a redirect. Looking through several pages of their creations, they seems to be an attempt to...I guess...''manually create a search function''? Probably fully a quarter of them are created as questions e.g., "should X redirect to Y?" or "is A the proper term for B?" I'm just not seeing much in the way of harmful collateral damage that would in any way outweigh the inordinate amount of time it would take to sort through these individually. ] 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::We could expand ] to include redirects created by this user. Just an idea I thought should be mentioned. ] ]║] 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Exactly. The main question in my mind, and I really don't know precisely how this works with the admin bit, but if ''all'' article creations are nuke-able with the click of a button, is there anything worth saving in the that are not redirects, which would justify having to tag and delete 950 redirects. ] 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I won't support or oppose nuking everything outright without a review, but if it comes to it, I wouldn't get upset about it. I've added a different proposal under the '''Nuke''' proposal. ] ]║] 14:13, 16 February 2017 (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)
===New Speedy Deletion Criteria in Response===
::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)
Since there seems to be consensus at this time to revert these edits, and issues VERY similar to this have happened before (see ]) I am proposing a new speedy deletion criteria.
:::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)
X3: Pages created en-masse by a single user, where the community has established broad consensus that the pages are harmful to the encyclopedia, would create significant backlogs in their deletion discussion areas, and the reviewing admin believes that it will not survive a deletion discussion. Once the community establishes that the backlog is cleared, normal procedures resume.


: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)
It is similar to ], except it can be applied to more situations so we don't have to keep creating new X criteria. X1 would be merged into X3.


:*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)
Deletion reasons made under this criteria should contain a link to the discussion where consensus was established, and say "TYPE OF PAGE" created by "USER", to distinguish what situation the pages were deleted in. A list of situations where this criteria has been used should be created.
:*: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)
Example of deletion message: "Redirects created by ], see ]. ] ]║] 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:I'd support that. I should have the full list of redirects soon, which would give an indication of how much this criteria would be needed. ] (]) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


:Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation (]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Misplaced Pages where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. ] (]) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:This is more of a procedural point, but wouldn't this really be an expansion of X1 rather than the creation of a new criteria? ] 18:26, 16 February 2017 (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. ] (]) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::The reason why I made it an X3 is because some deletion reasons currently just say "X1", and you wouldn't know that it was a Neelix redirect if X1 was expanded. It would be better to retire X1 and continue removing Neelix redirects under X3. ] ]║] 20:07, 16 February 2017 (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)
:Does R3 "implausible redirects" already cover the case where a redirect is a special case of an existing general article/redirect? e.g. ] when there's already ] ] (]) 09:50, 17 February 2017 (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)
::Answer: '''No'''. R3 only covers redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. Because special cases are not typos nor misnomers, R3 does not apply in that case. ] (] | ]) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the creation of a X3 criteria for his redirects, and DAB pages. ] ] ] 18:48, 16 February 2017 (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)
*'''Comment''' If community consensus is necessary for a case to be added to this, isn't it just as easy for the community to authorise an X number criterion at the same time? I don't think this happens often enough for us to worry about running out of numbers. I can see this being open to the usual misunderstanding that many speedy criteria are. I'm not against the expansion of CSD criteria, but I think that perhaps keeping a specific number attached to a particular disaster one might be easier in the long run than having a catch-all criterion. I may well be missing something. (I know I'm missing my tea, and might see things differently later...) ] (]) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (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)
::It would take longer to get consensus for a new speedy deletion criteria than to get consensus for invoking an already existing one. A perfect example is this discussion. A discussion similar to this would have to take place every time. In the future, someone could just propose the use of X3 instead of creating a new X. We also wouldn't have to create new template every time, we could just use X3 with values. ] ]║] 20:20, 16 February 2017 (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)
*'''Oppose''' creating a new speedy criteria that could potentially apply to any user, but would support X3 being specifically in relation to contributions by {{user|Fmadd}}. This situation is rare enough that we can afford to take the time to add to CSD on a user-by-user basis. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 20:24, 16 February 2017 (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)
*'''Oppose''' already covered by existing criteria. If a user were creating pages in specific contravention of a ban, ] is covered. ] is sort of the ] of deletion criteria as well, if you have a good specific rationale, which is likely to be uncontroversial, G6 should cover it. Especially if a community consensus has already determined that some large block of articles should be speedy deleted as part of a long discussion, then someone could just tag each one as <nowiki>{{db-g6|rationale = <link to original discussion>}}</nowiki> should suffice. I'm already troubled by the existence of the X category anyways, and I'd not like to see it grow. --]] 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::I am in the diffs.
::'''Comment''' G6 only covers technical deletions, and G5 wouldn't work in this case as the user was not banned at the time the pages were created. Also, X3 would probably prevent more X's being created. ] ]║] 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
{{out}}Ah...] anyone? If the community assessment is that the stuff should be nuked, who gives two figs what bureaucratic code is applied to it, just go ahead and do it per ]. ] (]) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC) :::::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)
:If the community decides a nuke is in order, then the pages should simply be nuked, and the edit summary should link back to this discussion. On the other hand, if the community decides a manual review of the edits is in order, a speedy criterion to keep everybody on the same page makes good sense. ] (]) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (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)
*'''Oppose''' ] The reason we use certain designations is that any user can see the designation in the logs and know why the deletion took place. The proposed X3 would mean people had to search for this discussion first. In this specific case, unlike the Neelix one, it would probably not be a terrible strain on ] if those redirects were listed there instead. We should take care not to create new speedy criteria unless it's really necessary. Alternatively, just nuke all the redirects he created, they are cheap and can be recreated easily. Regards ''']]''' 21:45, 17 February 2017 (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)
*'''Oppose''' per SoWhy. --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. ] (]) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as an useful criterion for users that are not blocked but created redirects ''en masse'', as nuking is only useful toward indefinitely blocked users with account creation blocked and autoblock enabled. Neelix is an example, but we need to stop users from creating redirects ''en masse'' using a new speedy deletion criterion, instead of creating a new one for each of those users. The name I propose for the criterion is R4, because I believe it will be permanent. ] (] | ]) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (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}}
===Inappropriate global reverts===
A great number of non-redirect contributions were just reverted out by Primefac, which does not seem supported by consensus above and is contrary to existing policy and precedent. For those arguing that nothing Fmadd did was not a redirect problem, you are very wrong, and this has been a grave error. ] (]) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:Last night I spent the better part of an hour undoing a mess they made with ] - they moved it to another location, changed 100+ wikilinks to unnecessary redirects, and generally made a mess of things. In every instance I've looked, they've done this. In one instance they changed ] into ], which is a redirect to pair production! I did not find any good reason not to nuke everything and sift through the ashes. ] (]) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
::Congratulations, that's one of the ones that tipped me something was going on. That one appears to be connected to the problems called out above. Hoever, ] didn't have anything I see as a problem, he added two perfectly good links (one via a redirect, but a link should have been there from that term, and the other one went straight in to the existing article). So, question: is my watchlist the only two articles with a 50% obvious error rate for a global revert, or was the global revert too aggressive?... Sample size small, but so far I am not impressed... ] (]) 00:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
* in "Second processor" where Fmadd removed a redundant word. ] (]) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
* in ] where he linked Static and Dynamic Web Pages (appropriate, good links) via redirects (inappropriate). Just reverting was wrong-o. ] (]) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
**...annnd the same thing in ], a good link via a redirect that should have gone direct instead. And those three were just the last three things you reverted. ] (]) 00:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:* Either fix the problems you see, or just file it under ] and let's get out of the morass and back to editing an encyclopedia. I don't see this kind of nit-picking as being very useful. ] (]) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I also don't find the "problems" you're highlighting here as terribly significant. ] (]) 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ec|5}} Their astronomy work was... less bad than the other stuff. Since I checked them all earlier, I can tell you - every single DAB they created they went in and created 5-10 links to it, regardless of if it even made sense (which it didn't). I found a huge copy-paste page move (which I did fix, by the way) as well as a ridiculous number of anchors placed in the first sentence of the article. Half of their edit summaries were "I don't know what this links to, maybe we can fix it later?". I will not deny that I undoubtedly reverted some decent edits, but I ''know'' that I fixed more than I broke, and by a significant margin. If you want to crawl through every edit I made, feel free to make a list and post it on my page, but at that point it's just as easy for ''you'' to hit undo as it is for me. ] (]) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
*] which was the fifth most recent thing reverted. With all due respect Beyond my Ken and Primefac, this is not collateral damage. This is clear evidence that "nuke it all from orbit" was the wrong thing to do here. I would be perfectly happy to take some fraction of the 900-plus edits that were reverted and fix them, but the right approach is what we do with copyvios and list them all out and have people take chunks of them and review them. And given the error rate in the blanket reversion, I suggest we do so from a position of undoing all the reverts and then cleaning up the underlying edits, rather than having to back through the reverts the hard way. ] (]) 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:*You've pointed out a few trivial errors: 4 out of 900-plus. That's hardly establishing a significant error rate. Also, I can;t believe you're using copyvio as an example of a procedure to follow: if you look at the copyvio area, you'll note that some of those have lingered there unchecked for a very long time, despite the hard work done by Brownhairedgirl and others. Here we have a case that's confined to a single editor, with what appears to be a fairly low error rate from nuking (or at least a significant error rate has yet to be established). Better, in my opinion, to nuke them all, and then fix the ones that didn't need nuking. ] (]) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
::*GWH: If you're pointing out these supposedly non-trivial errors here, why aren't you reverting them? ] (]) 01:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
**Those were 5 errors in seven checks; the last 5 reverts Primefac made (time wise) and the two articles I had watchlisted. So my error rate is over 70% on that sample. 4 out of 5 on the last 5 reverts, which are random vs the ones I watchlist (which aren't randomly selected, they're both astronomy/physics related, which I will accept for the sake of argument may have been better done). Maybe we should check some other random set of them, pick somewhere for me to start in the 900 and how many you think is reasonable (5 more? 10?) I am perfectly happy to / will fix those 5 articles, but I want to start doing so after we determine what the global solution is. If we have to undo all 900 reverts I'd rather baseline that than patch a few of them and then have to untangle it after. ] (]) 01:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
***37, 194, 477, 635, 743. Take 5 edits starting at each of those numbers, examine them, and determine the error rate for those 25 edits. (Don't worry about precision in counting, the numbers are just pseudo-random starting points - any five starting points throughout the sample will do.) ] (]) 01:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:Ok. Going backwards from as there have been updates since my last comments... (apologies, going to create list, then have to get on train, then will check when I get home, so need some time for the details...)
* First group: this was an inappropriate link, complicated - old link to central processor unit, new link to category of families of CPUs that he created, right answer is probably a new article to explain what a central processor unit family is (the CPU article doesn't now) - neither Fmadd nor the revert actual best solution, new link to redirect to category he created - not obviously wrong but revertable per discussion above, one link replaced three; link to redirect to category (same as prior entry) that was less subject-appropriate than the original three, probably wrong of Fmadd
two links - first: straightforwards, correct link. Second: created improper redirect, but a direct link to target was appropriate - right solution should have been to direct-link the second instead of via the redirect. Reverts respectively right, (neither), right per consensus, right, wrong/should have fixed instead for 2 halves ] (]) 02:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
* Second group: two links to one link via a redirect into the second link's article - neither way best, should probably be single link to anchor in ] where real and complex matricies are defined, new link to the same topic problem as first entry second group - same solution, same as first, second entries, same as first, second, third entries, ah, new problem. Link to redirect (consensus bad) that should have direct linked to a vanchor I believe was appropriate in ] which was reverted out as part of all of this, so is broken now. four (complicated, should go to vanchor that was never placed instead); fifth should have been direct linked to vanchor that should be replaced (how do we score *that*...?) ] (]) 03:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
*Third group: , , , ,
*Fourth group: (approx start) , , , ,
**Plus next one: just because I watchlist it, will not count for 25
*Fifth group: , , , ,
:(bottom of list) ] (]) 02:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


===Send to AE?===
* For what it's worth, five of Primefac's reverts of Fmadds edits show up on my watch list, all of which I checked, and only one of Fmadd's edits were, in my view, OK (which I restored). ] ] 02:27, 17 February 2017 (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)
=== Ll928 ===
* {{UserSummary|Ll928}}


:Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".
New user LL928 and Fmadd seem to overlap quite a bit. - ] (]) 16:12, 17 February 2017 (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)
:Well spotted. Clearly a sockpuppet. Blocked. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 16:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
::The IP made no such claim? - ] <sub>]</sub> 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. - ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (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)
===50504F===
::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.
* {{userSummary|50504F}}
::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===
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... not a 100% match, but I think the early stuff was to get to autoconfirmed. ] (]) 13:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
{{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)}}
:In a surprisingly display of good faith, I have unblocked them. Talk about being in the wrong place editing the wrong redirects at the wrong time.... ] (]) 19:20, 24 February 2017 (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.
===Refocusing===
There, at some point here, were definitely some coherent options that got muddled by formatting and a lot of other issues. There seemed to be some general support for mass reversion and deletion, which itself got muddled by bureaucratic issues about creating a new CSD criteria, which then got muddled by specific reversions. So I guess my question to those involved is: what are the options that are still on the table, can we condense those into a couple that have general consensus, and can we decide between them? ] 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Primefac}} can chime in here, but unless I'm counting wrong, it appears to me that all of Fmadd's edits have been nuked, pursuant to the consensus in the sections above this one. ] (]) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
::I would be impressed to find that all 1k of them have been taken care of, but if that's the case, and everyone's fine with it, then I suppose we can close and move on with ourselves. ] 23:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
::I definitely don't see the consensus to nuke in the sections above. I'm happy if they were all legitimately reviewed, but I doubt that is the case. ] (]) 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
:::The consensus seems quite clear to me, and I applaud Primefac's decision to follow it. ] (]) 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
:Like BMK I support blanket removal. Those complaining that the removals should not have occurred without weeks of argument are welcome to check all edits and reinstate those that are genuinely helpful to the encyclopedia. If Misplaced Pages ever grinds to a halt, it will be because of the navel gazing and pointless bickering that occurs when the community responds to inappropriate contributions. ] (]) 01:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
::I reverted about 1700 of Fmadd's (current) edits, and I've been undone about 20 times. An error rate of <2% is perfectly acceptable to me. Due to some (understandable) hesitation (mostly by {{u|Tazerdadog}}) I have not nuked all of his redirects.
::Given the apparently p<0.05 validity of their edits, my guess would be <5% of their redirects would be salvageable. I've taken a couple of days off to clear my head from the "nuke everything" blinders, and will be going through ] and seeing what could legitimately be kept. Hopefully I can get through this by the end of the week, and I'm thinking something like another week after that if there is no further input I'll delete what's in the "delete" pile. I'm pretty sure I started a talk page discussion and yall are welcome to join in. ] (]) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
* Well, if ] is committed to sorting through the issue, especially if {{u|Tazerdadog}} is willing to act as a second opinion, which should and seems to be respected by PF, is there anything here left which requires administrator attention or broad community input? ] 22:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
:*I think it would be beneficial to hear from {{ping|Georgewilliamherbert}}, who objected most strongly (but politely) to the nuking, to see whether his examination of the 25 edits I suggested has changed his mind. Certainly, the complexity of what he has reported so far has not changed my mind that nuking was the right option, as opposed to having numerous editors dedicate large portions of their lives to undoing the ] Fmadd created. ] (]) 01:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


] (]) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Please ping me {{yo|Primefac}} when you have the list of redirects to be deleted, and I'll check them over. I wish you hadn't done the mass rollback on Fmadd's edits, but I will acknowledge that consensus might not be with me on that point and it doesn't seem to be breaking the wiki. ] (]) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Tazerdadog}}, will do. ] (]) 01:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC) *'''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)
::], ]: I'm just gonna say, I think you guys may be in the wrong place, since this seems a heckuva lot like civil editors cooperating to work through a well reasoned compromise. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed at ANI. ] 13:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
::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)
:::I'll notify the media. ''']]''' 14:16, 20 February 2017 (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.
Note that I posted ] about a few redirects in particular I thought were plausible or fixable. I am weakly in favor of keeping the ones I mentioned; because of that doubt, I have yet to update Primefac's list, but I will do so ASAP. --] (]) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:<small>{{ping|Tazerdadog}} {{ping|Primefac}} ] 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> :— <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


=== Proposals re Hob Gadling and civility ===
== Possible logged-out editing to evade topic ban ==


{{userlinks|Hob Gadling}}
The following is suspicious, but I am not 100% sure that it passes ].


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.
On 18 September 2016 ] was indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories.


<span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
On 19 February 2017 ] started posting to ], making the same basic point that Jed Stuart was making before the topic ban; that we should treat the opinions of those who believe that they are victims of electronic harassment with the same weight as the opinions of mental health professionals who believe that their experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis. Examples:
:<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 ===
So, do I hear a quack, or am I hearing quacking where there isn't any? --] (]) 17:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:You know if you wore a tinfoil hat you wouldnt hear subliminal quacking.... ] (]) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:Just took a look at their contributions. SPA-IP which exists only to push an agenda. Largely irrelevant as to the duck test, what they want is unlikely to happen. Continued pushing will probably end up with a block sooner rather than later. From the article talkpage history I suspect they are more likely related to who also had a bee in their bonnet about state terrorism. ] (]) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
::Bananas? ] (]) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
* I semi-protected the talk page due to obvious evasion of sanctions. A review of past talk page edits indicates that this will not be in any way detrimental, one month for now and we could make it indefinite without any obvious downside. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
:Owww ] (]) 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
: That is not me. And that is not the point I was attempting to make. Typical mischaracterization of what I was attempting to say. I am reading that Talk page though and one day you may regret treating me with such belligerence. How many times have I been accused of doing that? I can't be bothered to find out.] (]) 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


{{userlinks|Hob Gadling}}
::If you say that 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA is not you I will take your word for it. As for "belligerence", I would not be doing you any favors if I were to mislead you into thinking that there is the slightest hope that your theories will ever be included in any Misplaced Pages article without you first finding a reliable source as defined by ] to back them up. --] (]) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I was not attempting to assert a personal theory. I was attempting to integrate information from the Washington Post into the article and also achieve a more NPOV than an article weighted 100% to not well researched psychiatric opinion in an environment in which many people think otherwise. I was banned from the article on the basis of your and others false accusations and am angry now that I was banned without being given the chance to refute all that.] (]) 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Call it whatever you want. It is not going into any Misplaced Pages article without a ]-compliant source backing it up, which the Washington Post article is not. You were ] indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories per . To your credit, you have obeyed the topic ban, but the fact that you seem to have ] tells me that the topic ban needs to stay in place. Of course you can appeal the ban (see ]) but any appeal will be rejected until you show some understanding of why so many people supported your topic ban. --] (]) 08:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::Whether or not the IP was Jed, Jed's actions in this this thread are almost certainly not covered under BANEX. The most recent comment is a blatant attempt to justify the behaviour that led to the ban. {{ping|Jed Stuart}} Just to be clear, you are allowed comment here to either deny or admit to having engaged in sockpuppetry to get around your TBAN. You are not allowed loudly proclaim that the ban was not justified to begin with and you never did anything wrong, unless you are specifically appealing the ban itself. This thread is not, at least right now, about appealing your ban; it is about whether you violated it by socking. You have denied this accusation. The community will decide whether your denial is credible. But if you continue to violate your ban by discussing it in a manner like above it will not matter whether you had already violated or not. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::Hijiri makes a good point. {{u|Jed Stuart}}, I'm not going to ask for sanctions myself, but you should be aware that your last comment was a violation of your topic ban. Take this as a warning and try to abide by it. And please, ''please'' try to realize why you were topic banned. I would like nothing more than to be able to support you if/when you eventually appeal it, but it doesn't look like I can from your last comment.
::::::(I can't believe I forgot to watchlist that page with my alt, so I've been unaware of it as I rarely use my main account these days.) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC
:::::::{{re|MjolnirPants}} I don't know quite how it works, but I notice ] -- does this mean you use a different email with your alt account? My watchlist to send me email notifications, so I tend to (fallaciously) assume that's how everyone else uses theirs. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I can get emails sent to either account, but I don't want email notifications of changes on my watchlist. I'm usually watching at least 1-3 wikispace pages in addition to 2 noticeboards, 2 project pages and 1 help desk page. I'd drown in emails if I did that, and I'm too lazy to set up something to handle them for me. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 04:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::: OK, I wont let Guy Macon goad me into any more discussion of the EH article. How do we clear up whether I am socking or not? I know that people with a similar perspective to mine on that article do often attempt to win that way, but I dont think of doing that as it would be a difficult victory to hold and might even be bad for ones health.] (]) 22:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Jed Stuart}} That's the spirit. And (although I don't necessarily agree that this was happening here), if you see someone apparently trying to goad you into violating your editing restriction, a good idea is to politely ask them to stop, and if they refuse then you can notify the admin who closed the ban discussion and ask them to intervene. (In theory, you should be able to open an ANI thread on them, but I tried this before -- it frequently doesn't work.) Obviously goading someone into violating their own editing restriction despite warnings to stop is a blockable offense. You're actually lucky in that you are only subject to a TBAN. With an IBAN it's ''much'' worse because even mentioning the username of the person you are banned from interacting is a clear violation that can get you immediately blocked, even if another user is disruptively bringing up their name in an unrelated dispute. In your case, simply saying {{tq|I don't want to discuss that with you; it would probably be a violation of my editing restriction}} would likely do the trick, but if you were subject to an IBAN and you said the same thing ... don't ask. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Hijiri88}}I will try that it if it happens again. I prefer polite. ] (]) 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I apologize. I just wasn't thinking with my "I wouldn't be doing you any favors if..." comment, which was completely unfair given the topic ban forbidding a reply. I deserve a slap in the face with a wet trout for being such an idiot, and Jed Stuart should be held blameless. It was entirely my fault. --] (]) 09:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Would that some users clearly guilty of repeated and flagrant goading were as quick to admit being in the wrong. You are to be commended for your willing contrition, Guy. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::: Thanks for the apology.] (]) 03:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::: {{re|MjolnirPants}} I am thinking about why I was banned, and am still concerned that it was based on untruths. I did however learn a lot about how corrupted Misplaced Pages is at that level. The comments by EdChem at my attempt to get a right of reply were most enlightening . I will appeal when fairness is valued again and there is less chance of getting a repeat of that Stalinist show trial. Bow to the God of Misplaced Pages. I still like it though.] (]) 04:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::Jed, you're really going to hurt yourself if you insist that Misplaced Pages is out to get you. In case you hadn't noticed, WP is made of all kinds. We have liberals and conservatives, social justice warriors and white nationalists, conspiracy theorists and sheeple, atheists and Christians and Jews and Muslims, lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Getting any sort of cabal or conspiracy together out of that hot mess is, even you have to admit, all but impossible. Even getting a group of like-minded individuals together on request is extraordinarily difficult here (and ] as a rule). You're heading down a path I've seen a dozen or so editors take, and while each one had a different story of their trip down that path, each one has ended up in an indefinite ban. A ''well-earned'' indefinite ban, I might add. Please don't follow them. If you need to take a ], then do that. But don't shoot yourself in the foot by trying to put motivations on a gaggle of a few hundred nerds with strong opinions on everything. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 06:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::: I don't think Misplaced Pages is out to get me. I think I was treated unfairly by a small group of people, and wont be appealing until Misplaced Pages returns to valuing fairness at that level. Simple thing really, many people have put energy into making it a fair and constructive place. It is truly amazing how much has been achieved. And I see many people though deeply saddened and some furious, not because it is out to get them, but because the good effort is being undermined by corruption of process, gaming the system, POV railroads etc, and I notice that many of those who have tried to change that drift towards something less user friendly have left. Not a conspiracy just a slide in the wrong direction. It will probably come good sooner or later. The momentum for that has been established.] (]) 05:25, 28 February 2017 (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 ].}}
== Debresser and Sir Joseph ==
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)
Both users are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on ], along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This is disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you.] (]) 18:34, 22 February 2017 (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)


===Suspected off-wiki coordination in COVID-19 lab leak topic===
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1
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)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1


: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)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017
::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)
:::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)
::::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)
:::::{{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)
::::::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)
::::::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)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop
* 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)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descent
::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)


===Dinglelingy===
:Firstly, even if the RFC was closed correctly, consensus can change. In addition, the RFC was extremely poorly written and discussed, even among the people commenting there was confusion. There is absolutely no prohibition on me creating a new RFC with a clearer, concise and simpler question. This is a content dispute and you are trying to create a chilling atmosphere where if someone disagrees with you, you will take them to ANI. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
{{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}}
: See ] for the underlying WP:MEAT issue behind this post. ] (]) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (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: ,
: First off, my post makes it pretty clear that this is a behavioral dispute, not a content one. Second, it was Debresser who worded the original RFC. That is something you need to take up with him. Although after reading over everything again, no one expressed confusion as to what we were discussing. This is a clear example of dishonesty on your part, and alongside your characterization of my post here as an insidious plot to silence dissent, only supports my view that you are unfit to edit in this area.] (]) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:: "One of the worst RFC's I've ever seen."
:: "I do agree with you...." ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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?
::: I'll give you 105, although it is unclear if it was a reaction to Debresser's OP (again, take that up with him), or the overall long-windedness of the thread. Beyond that, the survey '''''was''''' very clear on what was being discussed, and everybody involved understood that. The issue is moot.] (]) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
::::You are edit warring. The RFC was ONLY on the Category of Jewish Descent, not on anything else, since the Jewish Descent cat had Middle Eastern descent, asian descent. The RFC was not for any other categories. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::"Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose. Do not engage in threaded discussion, which can go above. The purpose of this section is to make it easier for the closer to assess what the !votes are without having to wade through a lot of back-and-forth." Did you even read the survey?] (]) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::: And yet the RFC itself was worded as "I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. " Notice all the "DESCENT" categories? ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} The wording was "Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose." Nothing about descent. '''However''' an RFC with that sort of wording needs to be in a centralized location and advertised properly. I don't know how it was advertised but I don't think one category talk page is a centralized location. The outcome should not be used as consensus for other pages, especially with the close. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{u|NeilN}} see right above where the RFC was specifically for descent, which is why the whole RFC was confusing. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It was advertised pretty well. Even the editors who were active in previous discussions were notified.] (]) 21:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Irrelevant, it was not in a central location so it can't be applied to any other categories. And besides, I stand by my assertion that the RFC is a bad RFC. It should be overturned just for being malformed. The question of the RFC doesn't match the survey and discussions. It is very confusing indeed. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 21:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::The survey was standalone (in fact, it was a reaction to the sheer long-windedness of the RFC) and the locus of discussion in the survey was abundantly clear. You can't overturn a survey decision because you believe there was widespread confusion (there wasn't) on the RFC, which as you admit, was separate.] (]) 22:03, 22 February 2017 (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 ]. Indeffed. ] 08:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating ] ==
ANYWAY, this is getting off topic. This section is about Debresser and Sir Joseph's behavior, particularly whether they are capable of editing objectively on Jewish descent categories. Everything I've seen from them since the closure of the survey points towards the negative.] (]) 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Bgsu98}}
::A request for moderated dispute resolution at ] was closed about a day ago as incompletely filed. It could also have been closed because the dispute is pending in another forum, this one. ] (]) 04:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.<br />
::: As a matter of fact, this should be discussed ]. ] (]) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Now moved to ]. ] (]) 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed an editor named {{u|Bgsu98}} who had been mass-nominating figure skater articles for deletion. It is too obvious to me that he doesn't do even a minimum search required by ] before nominating. (I must note that most of the skaters he nominates for AfD aren't English, so a foreign language search is required. Sometimes you need to search on a foreign search engine. For example, Google seems to ignore many Russian websites recently.)<br />I have counted 45 articles nominated by him at ]. And it is worrying that people seem to rely on the nominator's competence and vote "delete" without much thought.


I should note that {{u|Bgsu98}} doesn't seem to stop even when an article he nominated has been kept. He nominated ] (a national medalist) two times with the same rationale (]). One can really wonder why he does this.
*To be quite honest, {{U|The Human Trumpet Solo}}, you're a highly inexperienced editor, you have only left about five edit summaries in your entire life, and you don't even know how to correctly post a ]. This doesn't not inspire my confidence. It seems to me that this is entirely a content dispute, and no amount of wrangling on this noticeboard is going to change that. If people are edit-warring, warn them and report them at ], assuming that you have attempted discussion on article-talk first. If there are any further disagreements, let {{noping|NeilN}} and/or {{noping|Robert McClenon}} assist in forming a proper ] protocol in the proper venue(s) (which is not here). Please do not take up more time and space on this board. ] (]) 22:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


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.
I am still concerned that potential issues of MEAT, SPA, and possible socking remain unaddressed in this dispute. This is the second (perhaps third) time I wrote this now. ] 10:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


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


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)
Would the editing history of ] be considered ] behavior? I am not making any accusations; I really don't know whether this is or is not within the scope of that often-treated-as-policy information page. --] (]) 18:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:Some of the questions posed by {{user|66.213.29.17}} are a bit odd, but I don't think they cross the line, at least not yet. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:I don't see how NOTHERE could ever apply to the Reference Desks. Exceedingly few of the questions are related to article editing, ergo few of the questioners are here to build an encyclopedia. Whether the behavior is borderline trollish is another question. Three completely unrelated new questions on three desks within 25 minutes? Are the questions sincere or does the person simply enjoy triggering interminable RD debates for some reason? I'll keep my psych theories to myself. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
::No, it's the opposite. ] and ] applies to most of the reference desk most of the time. It's a bit like not being a ''nice guy'' while in prison. ] 20:12, 23 February 2017 (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)
*The refdesk isn't really part of the encyclopedia, so, no, NOTHERE clearly does not apply, or we would have to block half the particpants there who don't do anything else. ] (]) 20:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
::I agree with Star Mississippi. But just to give some scope, this cleaning house, mostly of ice skating junior champions, is not recent, it's been going on for at least 6-9 months now, it was originally done through the use of PROD'd articles. But while there have been some objections raised over the past year, Bgsu98's efforts have mostly received support from editors who believe Misplaced Pages is bloated with biographies of marginally notable athletes. Over the past two weeks, through the use of AFD, we have seen dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of annual national skating championship articles either deleted or redirected. But I just want to note that these AFDs wouldn't have closed as "Delete all" or "Redirect all" without the support of other AFD participants. Very few editors are arguing to Keep them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::<small>May God save the project. I don't know how we'd make it without them. ] 20:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small>


::"''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 usual reason for blocking someone on the ref desk is "disruption" or "long term abuse". "Not here" is sometimes used, but it's a little slippery, as Beeblebrox suggests. The ref desk itself started as a spinoff from the help desk, and both of them (like this page too) are not articles, but not quite talk pages either. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:::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)
I contribute to the Reference desk using an internet cafe in west London. However, when I composed an edit this morning and pressed "save" I discovered the machine had been blocked - for a month. The block notice said the blocker was "Favonian" and the reason given was {{xt|ban evasion, User:Vote (X) for Change}}. The last edit from the address had been at 09:17 and it was a correction of a punctuation error in a talkpage heading. "Favonian" had reverted the correction with this edit summary:
* 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
{{xt|''Don't refactor other editors' comment -- especially not when you're community banned.''}}
|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.
This is nonsense - formatting corrections are made frequently and they are permitted by policy. On checking the block log I saw that this was the ''second'' block - the IP had previously been blocked by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" at 05:58 on Wednesday. The reason given here was {{xt|long-term abuse: User:Vote (X) for Change}}. "Future Perfect at Sunrise" then deleted a clutch of reference desk answers claiming they were provided by "banned users".
:<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.
I referred the matter to the management and they will happily confirm that the edits deleted by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" and the one deleted by "Favonian" were made by different people.
: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" ==
In addition, at the time this supposed ban evader "Vote (X) for Change" made the edit this morning I hadn't even left my house. I arrived at Finsbury Park station at 09:45 where the indicator board informed me that the 09:56 service to King's Cross was delayed and would leave at 10:05. Before leaving the train at Kings Cross the driver informed us that the delay was "caused by severe loss of power" (possibly connected to the fact that there is engineering work on the Cambridge line and trains are running no further than Welwyn Garden City). In any event, Finsbury Park is a very long way from west London. ] (]) 14:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|status=CBANNED|1=KirillMarasin has been ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:If you really want to contribute, you could request having your ban lifted. It seems you prefer to disrupt. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:17, 26 February 2017 (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)
=== The purpose of the refdesks ===
: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)
At ] the purpose of the refdesks is defined thusly:
::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)
:'''"The reference desk process helps the growth and refinement of Misplaced Pages by identifying areas that may need improvement. If an article that could answer a question is lacking the relevant information, look for a way to work the information into the article. This provides a lasting value to the project."'''


:'''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)
Does asking question after question, mostly not questions about about any article and without very little indication that he/she actually reads the answers "helps the growth and refinement of Misplaced Pages by identifying areas that may need improvement"? Are the refdesks there to benefit the encyclopedia, or are they there to be an embedded social networking site? --] (]) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:This is more appropriate for an RFC, not ANI, but I would say the short answer is that although it is possible and desirable that article improvements could come from refdesk questions, article improvement is obviously not the primary purpose of the refdesk in practice, regardless of what that page says. ] (]) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::It would be nice if we could compel a questioner to acknowledge his previous question before asking another. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:::It would be nice if we could require questioners to ask questions that are in any way relevant to the encyclopedia, and I would completely support an RfC proposal reining them in, and explicitly stating that NOTFORUM applies to Misplaced Pages, period. This is the second time this issue has come up here in the last month and frankly I think it's mostly just silly. I personally don't care how many people might get alienated by the reform, because if those people are not in any way contributing to the project, then their alienation isn't the project's concern. If they do contribute, and their questions are relevant, then it shouldn't terribly affect them anyway. ] 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
::::No wonder this sounds so familiar. Has anything about the particular user come up on the ref desk talk page? Because that's where it belongs, at this point. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


== History of disruptive COI editing ==
::::Looking again through the list of questions from that user, some are a tad provocative, but nearly all of them, if not all (1) can be answered by appropriate references; and/or (2) explicitly or implicitly suggest where improvements might be possible in articles. Conceptually, that's not at odds with the stated goal of the ref desks. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
:Timothyjosephwood, ''"This is the second time this issue has come up here in the last month"'' -- did it ''need'' to come up here, or did the reporter just overreact? As Bugs says, this one can be handled on the refdesk talkpage. The refdesk regulars usually deal such issues pretty well. ] (]) 03:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
::Need? If this editor had been doing this literally anywhere else on the project then decidedly yes, and they probably would have already been sanctioned for it. But for some reason we've decided that the ref desk is somewhere where it's appropriate to ask questions about , or talk about , and frankly, as long as we have vocal editors, and even ] who engage in and encourage discussion entirely off the topic of building an encyclopedia, then we can't really expect anything to be done about it, and whether a user there gets blocked boils down to, as far as I can tell, personal opinion on whether they are trolling. For my own part, I think a standard of appropriateness that seems to boil down to "any question whatsoever that can in any way be responded to in a way that includes a wikilink", is a bar that is somewhat beneath the project. But hey, maybe one day I too will have a gratuitous question about my genitals, and there'd be no reason to cough up that co-pay when I know the ref desk is just a click away and happy to help. ] 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I am not an administrator. Merely a wiki-peon. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 12:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Well, I stand corrected. I suppose I see you around here enough that I assumed. ] 13:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


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.
== User uploading copyrighted videos ==


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)
{{user17|Ju English}} has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted videos and other materials, either not licensing them or leaving out fair use rationales. The lack of use (not even in userspace) leads me to suspect ]. In addition to the CSD warnings, I gave a sterner one this morning, and the user has continued to upload. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 17:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
:Hello, ],
:Blocked for 24 hrs. -] (]) 17:12, 24 February 2017 (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)
::Another user: {{user17|Arlindo gomes Arlindo}} &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 06:38, 25 February 2017 (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.
:{{ping|Ad Orientem}} Possible block evasion - {{user17|Junior De Almeida}} - see ] &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 15:34, 25 February 2017 (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 have blocked both Ju English and Junior De Almeida for socking per DUCK pending the conclusion of . I am not sufficiently confident about Arlindo gomes Arlindo's possible relationship to the other two accounts to block them for socking. However, I have posted a level 4 warning, which I am guessing will be ignored, on their talk page. The next time they upload a non-free image I will block them. If you think this is the same person feel free to add them to the SPI investigation. -] (]) 16:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
::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 don't suspect the third account of sockpuppetry, it was just another video-uploader to be dealt with. Can you delete the uploads/userpages of the blocked users? &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 17:28, 25 February 2017 (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)
*{{ping|Ad Orientem}} More uploads by {{user17|Arlindo gomes Arlindo}}, including an ] on ca-wiki. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 15:49, 26 February 2017 (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)
::Blocked for 1 week. The files appear to have already been tagged for deletion which works for me. Let the clock run. -] (]) 15:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
{{ping|Ad Orientem}} and others: I got a little suspicious when I saw the aforementioned instructional video on how to upload, and went digging around ca-wp. I found ], which links similar issues to cross-wiki ] abuse. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 01:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


== Uncivil behavior ==
== Many IPs with KCBS-TV and Paul Magers ==


{{ping|Jasper_Deng}} has been continually bludgeoning a conversation about a page rename, casting unsupported aspersions, acting uncivilly, and newcomers (me).
Recently, there was a brief edit warring with me and the adding of Paul Magers which is a KCBS anchor. Although he is an anchor for KCBS-TV, he does not have an article. Only names that do have articles can be put into the article! See the talk page on KCBS-TV for more information. This is a list of IPs that keep adding Paul Magers.


'''Teahouse'''
107.77.209.202, 73.94.201.224, 2605:e000:3d4b:b900:fdd0:844e:8f55:6117, 2601:601:8701:f3ae:d02f:118:ef5e:2e03


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.
Not every TV station mentions main anchors. I may need to get a page-protection request. ] (]) 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


They followed me to the teahouse and:
:You can add names that don't have articles, why not? This isn't ], but if it was, your request would probably be declined. ] 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::It cannot run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and WP:NOTNOTABLE ] (]) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::] is an essay about AfD voting. Per ] and ], individual people in a list must only require sourcing that they belong on the list, not that they are independently notable. In particular, the standards for the anchor being included in the list is no greater than the standards for him being included elsewhere in the article in prose (which he is, twice), and the standards for him being included is simply ] (a reliable source must say he is an anchor for him to be included). Especially note the sentence in LISTBIO that says {{tq|On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable.}} which would seem to apply here. I found a couple good sources that state Magers belongs on the list, so I will add him along with those sources and post this message on the talk page as well. '''] ]''' 06:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


*Bludgeoned me
== Overturn Rfc restarted ==
*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?
{{atop|{{nac}} RfC reclosed as '''no consensus''' by {{noping|El C}} due to numerous improper !votes. <p><s>This discussion is getting endless, off-topic, and redundant, just like the previous one which was recently closed. As is permitted 30 days after the close of a previous RfC, if desired, please start a new, well-worded, and neutral RfC on the subject, and publicize it in centralized venues (without any ] via usertalk, pinging, or mention off-wiki) to get a wide and fair input. If necessary, put the <nowiki>{{not a vote}}</nowiki> tag at the top of the RfC, and tag any SPAs or apparently canvassed !votes accordingly. Then have a neutral admin close the RfC after 30 days. Report any edit-warring at ].</s>
-- ] (]) 11:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) ; edited 12:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)}}
{{caution|The below discussion is about the circumstances surrounding the close of the RfC in question. It is not intended as a forum to rehash the actual arguments in the RfC. Editors are kindly asked to confine their comments to the issue at hand in the hopes of keeping this thread to a manageable length. And please try to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors, even if you strongly disagree with them. Your cooperation is deeply appreciated. -] (]) 06:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)}}
After somebody closed ], a rather interesting way of dealing with off-topic comments, per the closing editor's comment let's try it again. Recently an editor pointed out to me that discussed a revert of mine, while specifically linking to my Misplaced Pages and Facebook profiles. The writer of that block called people to "create an account, learn the site’s rules, and push back vigorously against those who would defame or delegitimize the Jewish people on the world’s largest online encyclopedia". In the ensuing discussion he also said "I have already brought this matter to the attention of a number of Jewish and pro-Israel groups. I still have a few more to go, but needless to say this problem WILL be dealt with". After that article, which also linked to ], we had various single purpose IP editors or editors who were inactive till recently, who have tried to change that category page. Two editors tried to do the same on some other category and related pages. ]: I reverted him and warned him on his talkpage, but he decided to edit war about it: And ]: He also decided to edit war about it ''after'' he participated in the thread above and was aware of all warnings:


In the process they said {{tq|Don't overthink this}} to me.
Because of the obvious connection between the blog article and the edit on the category page and the related edits mentioned above, I decided to do some research. The Rfc on ], which is related to this issue, turns out to have been loaded with WP:MEAT: ] is a blocked sock, ] never edited after that discussion, ] made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue, ] was a one-edit account, and ] made no edits between that Rfc and this WP:ANI issue. My conclusion is that it is likely to the degree of certainty that the Rfc was decisively influenced by either socks or trumped up editors, probably in much the same way as the blog describes. The 5 editors I mentioned here all voted "keep", and should be disqualified. That would leave the Rfc with only 2 "keep"s against 7 "remove"s.


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.}}
A few more points regarding the closure of that Rfc, which add to my opinion that it should be overturned: 1. The survey shows that opinions were evenly balanced, 7:7, so the closure should have been "No consensus for any changes, keep as is". 2. It was a first-time closure by a non-admin, ]. 3. The closing statement is internally inconsistent, claiming at the same time that the conclusion of the discussion was to keep the category ''and'' to maintain a consensus version, but failing to notice that the consensus version since 2013 had been to ''not'' to have the category. 4. In addition there is the WP:MEAT issue which I raised in this WP:ANI thread. 5. All of this is in addition to the fact that I think the closing editor was wrong to have ignored many of the Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines related issues I mentioned in the survey section of the Rfc, which I won't go into here, but I do want to stress that I really really think the closing editor made the wrong call, even without the WP:MEAT issue which obviously was impossible to be aware of at the time. Based on all the above, I think the Rfc should be overturned. ] (]) 23:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
:Thank you for that concise explanation of the issue that got lost in the previous thread. I would like to hear from other experienced editors bearing in mind that we are NOT here to re-argue the RfC but are strictly considering the circumstances of the close including the possibility that the RfC may have been prejudiced by off-wiki WP:CANVASSING. -] (]) 01:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
* I participated in the ''"Survey"'' that <small>(I think)</small> occurred after the close. In particular I remember that the closer gave a great deal of weight to cited sources which, as was outlined there, did not, in fact support the position claimed and I was quite confused with their reasoning considering the weight of other arguements. This was clearly not an RfC to cut one's teeth on and should have been left to a more experienced closer and when challenged it should probably have been reopened. The evidence of MEAT presented above is also a concern and, in my mind, further delegitimizes the result. <p> I would suggest that someone uninvolved work with both "sides" to come up with a well formed RfC and run it again. The existing discussions are nothing consensus can be drawn from. I would also ''strongly'' suggest that as part of crafting the RfC that the excessively 'vocal' editors on each side each make a !vote statement and then retire to the sidelines - in particular avoid repeatedly responding to one another. We ''all'' know what these editors' opinions are on the issue and an RfC is to get ''new'' opinions. These editors are experts in the topic but the back and forth bludgeoning serves no good purpose. <p> TL;DR I think the last RfC was flawed. A new, well formed and widely published RfC should be run. ]] 03:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


*They then me by again saying in part {{tq|I'm afraid you are overthinking it}}
::] continues to violate ] and ], despite many, '''''many''''' sources proving him and those who joined him on the RfC and the survey opinions wrong (such editors include ] and ]—who have also both violated ], ], and ] on here (in the above "Jewish Category" argument), and in other forums). Users ], ], ], and ] have participated in more than several Jewish-related Misplaced Pages Talk page conversations and provided many valid sources during the survey and RfC in question. In addition, ] seems eminently qualified as a Misplaced Pages editor to make a decision as a third-party, given the number of edits they have made, and the range/scope of them. ] accuses me of edit warring, which I have not done; I cited my reasons for reverting each time and respected the ]; in fact, Debresser has violated the ] on multiple occasions on this and similar subjects.
* and made continued, unsupported, exaggerated claims of misconduct against me {{tq|Don't cast the WP:ASPERSION of "willful disrespect".}}


'''Talk page'''
::In addition, the RfC decision to keep the category "Middle Eastern people of Asian descent"/"Asian people of Middle Eastern descent," for Jews—as is also for Arabs, Palestinians, Syrians, etc.—depended on the , which surely depended on the strengths of the arguments, not the number of people voting. It would seem that Debresser and/or Sir Joseph may be supplmentally violating of ] and/or ] and as ] noted, ].


Back on the talk page, they:
::I understand that the topic of Jewish identity remains complex—as it does for any Ethnocultural/racial/Tribal group's identity—however, in this case, ] are predominantly a ] (], ], "]," ] (see also ]), etc.) Ethnocultural/] ] and "]" (see: ], which includes West Asians, ]), Indigenous to ] (the Land of Israel, the region of ]). To deny Jews' Semitic/"Middle Eastern" origins would mean to deny Jews' heritage in general.
* 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
::Furthermore, people tend to bring up new members of the Tribe, or "converts," during these conversations; my opinion is that such members are "adopted" and intersect their previous ethnic identity with that of Jews' Semitic identity; and their descendants will have increasingly Semitic Ethnocultural/sociopolitical status if they continue to practice Jewish/Semitic traditions/culture/language/philosophies/etc. and there are Either way, . That is one of the reasons why . In any respect, "converts" often follow the same geographic/sociopolitical pathways that ethnic Jews follow, and often have to face the same racism that ethnic Jews face for being Jews (a.k.a. ]; therefore, new members and their descendants carry a new Middle Eastern sociopolitical identity in addition to their previous genetic-ethnic identity.


'''So I warned them to stop bludgeoning on their talk page'''
::The editors who do not want the categories added to People of Jewish descent, mentioned above, seem to want to ignore all the evidence provided by various editors because it does not match their world view, and have violated various Misplaced Pages rules to do so. Todah Rabah (Many Thanks). ] (]) 05:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::{{U|Jeffgr9}} please be careful in your posts. The above comment comes very close to a personal attack. It would be helpful if everyone made an effort to assume good faith on everyone elses part. Further, as I noted in my above comment, '''we are NOT here to rehash the RfC'''. That is a rabbit hole down which we are not going. It can be done elsewhere if the RfC is overturned and a new one posted. Please confine your comments to the circumstances surrounding the close of the RfC. This goes for everyone else too. -] (]) 05:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Thank you, ], I appreciate the response. I did not mean what I said as a personal attack, just as what I have experienced on this forum and during previous encounters with all named editors (negative or positive). I also just wanted to explain my position and why the RfC does not need to be reopened. Finally, if the RfC were reopened—I would recommend it be dependent on a survey instead, as ] suggested above, because then the strength of the arguments would matter more than just the number of votes needed to win, something I would also hope ] might consider as well. Thank you very much, again. ] (]) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::Jeffgr9, thank you for your clarification. I appreciate it. -] (]) 06:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Agreed, this isn't the forum. Indeed, on the face of it, a rather problematic RfC closure which raises additional questions. ] 05:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::] What was problematic about the closure in your opinion? ] (]) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::There dosen't seem to have been consensus, and the appearance of users with very few edits is also a concern. ] 06:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for your response, ]. I think the initial lack of consensus was the purpose of the survey, so that the strength of the arguments could be the main factor, as opposed to just a normal RfC. The strength of arguments for "keep" was found in favor over "remove." It also seems that there was only 1-2 confirmed users with few edits. ] (]) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe it's better to just reopen it, since so many are taking issue with the closure. ] 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::] Only (literally) a few editors seem to take issue with the closure, and they were on the "remove" side. ] (]) 10:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


In the edit note, they:
I took another look at which Debresser suggests influenced ]. Given that the survey was closed on 2 January 2017, it's impossible that an article published 17 February 2017 could have affected it in any way. In any case, the survey was closed based on the arguments and the sources (or lack of sources) of each side, rather than on the tally of !votes.] (]) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::I don't think Debresser was alleging that the cited off wiki CANVASSING directly influenced the RfC. He states that it motivated him to look into who was !voting and found evidence of WP:MEAT. -] (]) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


*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.}}
:::] & ], I just looked at DeBresser's cited references for "single purpose" users, and it appears that three of the users he cited were not in fact "single purpose" users, but ] and ], as well as ], who made more than several edits prior to the category in question. And it also seems that Debresser's prior accusation of sockpuppetry against ] does not hold because the same user . So, what is Debresser's evidence of WP:MEAT, other than possibly two "single purpose" editors that he mentions (out of nine total editors mentioned in the above passage, seven of whom are neither "single purpose," nor sock puppets)? ] (]) 06:22, 26 February 2017 (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.}}
: I'm not sure what can be mandated by this board, but I'd like to suggest: reopen the RfC with a strict total word limit for each contributor and administrator-only closing. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


:
the IP user is me. I didnt have an account back then. I commented on the survey because it caught my attention. why am I being reported over this? P.s. sorry if my english is bad
the IP user is me. I didnt have an account back then. I commented on the survey because it caught my attention. why am I being reported over this? P.s. sorry if my english is bad. ] (]) 06:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:Which IP user were you, ]? ] (]) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


*Casting aspersions and threatening me with a block again {{tq|
176.251.119.35 is me - I failed to login. After ] reverted based on me being an IP, I realized my mistake. With the most recent changes, ] reverted my addition of a ''commented out'' inclusion of the category in dispute to try and discourage further edit warring.] (]) 11:42, 26 February 2017 (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.}}
: Well, I didn't revert ''because'' you edited as an IP, but okay. ] (]) 18:22, 26 February 2017 (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).}}
*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.}}


This has been an upsetting experience for me. Perhaps I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia.] (]) 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*''']'''—''']'''. ] 11:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


* I think it was premature to open a discussion about a new Rfc. In addition, I strongly feel there is no need for a new Rfc. After removing the WP:MEAT from the bones, the previous Rfc reached a clear conclusion of 7 against 2 editors to ''keep the status quo'' and ''not'' have the additional category. Even if some of the 5 editors would be considered legitimate, something I think would be a mistake, there is still a clear consensus against. That is in addition to all the other arguments. ] (]) 16:27, 26 February 2017 (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 just found out above '''only 1 editor''' has not been accounted for a later edit that you reverted for your claim of WP:MEAT (outside of the RfC/survey). That makes '''8 out of 9''' editors whom you mentioned in this thread '''who agree to "keep" the category/categories''' of Middle Eastern people of Asian descent/Asian people of Middle Eastern descent, and not to "remove" it/them. And please do not violate ]/] in this forum. ] (]) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


'''''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.'''''
By the way, I think it is very important we hear from the closing editor, ]. ] (]) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


'''''Thank you, and my apologies for any confusion my venue selection has caused.'''''
:I agree it is important to hear from ]. ] (]) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
] (]) 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please see below, about 4 paragraphs (assuming no interposing edits) down. Thank you. ] ] ] 18:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


Musashiaharon has posted on my talkpage, and honestly admits that his point of view on this issue is politically influenced and determined. That is an additional argument to disqualify him from the old Rfc (and any future Rfc, which ceterum censeo is not needed). ] (]) 16:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


: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 @]:
:], your claim of "politically" influenced/determined against ]'s response on your talk page is not what ] meant when they posted on your talk page—as evidenced by their response to your having expressed your above response to their response here. By continuously trying to invalidate multiple non-sock puppet, non-single-purpose editors' perspectives (which are, by the contrary, very valid) here, you seem to want to strongarm this discussion into a conclusion in your favor instead of listening to what the admins and other editors have to say. It makes the issue more about how you ] and ] the survey's outcome and not about the actual issue. Again, I do not mean this as a personal attack, but as an observation from what is happening here and related forums. ] (]) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (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)
:: Jeffgr9, please assume some good faith. I am seriously worried by the ''pattern of politically motivated edits'', which is precisely what this post is about, if you paid attention to my first post. I raise this point for admins to express their opinion, while at the same time not hiding my own opinion. ] (]) 18:56, 26 February 2017 (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)
:::], I believe you should assume good faith as well, instead of focusing on trying to invalidate other editors' perspectives in this forum; such perspectives may even conflict with your own, but they also may contain essential academic value to add to Misplaced Pages articles/categorizations/edits. ] (]) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (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)
:Indeed, Eggishorn has been conspicuously absent throughout this... ] 18:05, 26 February 2017 (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)
:::In actuality, {{ping|Debresser}}, I don't think my input is necessary or dispositive in any real sense. I closed the original RfC in policy, as endorsed by the only admin and uninvolved editors to participate in the AN thread. I remain confident that close accurately summarized that RfC as it was when I closed it. A raft of other issues have been raised, such as the above claims of canvassing and meatpuppeting, but these were not evident at that time or raised in the immediate aftermath and so I have no opinion on those later issues. Though there have been personal attacks on my honesty, my competence, and my overall integrity starting with that thread, I do not feel it would be productive to respond and so I haven't. There were no evidence or policy-based claims for one "side" of the debate when I closed the RfC and that hasn't changed. Any re-opening of that RfC or starting of a new RfC on the same subject is a discussion for others and I won't be involved.
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)
:::As to my "conspicuous" absence, {{ping|El_C}} I didn't feel my presence was going to contribute anything and don't think that there is any requirement for it. I did participate in the ] where the argument was essentially that one group, {{tq|imply believ a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently}} which {{tq|...is not sufficient for requesting review.}} Thank you. ] ] ] 18:26, 26 February 2017 (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)
::::Fair enough. The question now, after the fact, is inferring the consensus: a re-closure, or a new RfC, may be in order. ] 18:42, 26 February 2017 (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)
:::: While not hiding that I am the first to hold that the close was indeed incorrect, and I can not understand how you can defend it still, I am mainly interested in knowing if you think that serious WP:MEAT concerns as the ones raised here would have been likely to change have changed your view of the Rfc, had you been aware of them at the time. ] (]) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (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)
:::::{{ping|Debresser}}, I believe I have said most of what needs to be said. The challenges of the close have mostly fallen into three categories: personal attacks or accusations of bias, complaints that I am not an admin, and arguments rehashing the original RfC. I don't see anything above that demands my input as a useful addition to the discussion. ] ] ] 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:: As long as I use Wiki-accepted RS, my personal opinions should not matter. If personal opinions automatically disqualified editors as Debresser suggests, no Jew would be allowed to write about Judaism or Jews. ] (]) 18:21, 26 February 2017 (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.
::: You misunderstand. Everybody has a POV and that is completely legitimate. What is ''not'' legitimate is letting that POV knowingly influence your editing. Something you admitted to. ] (]) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::The letter I wrote to Debresser was an attempt to arrive at a common understanding, and I was open to being convinced by him. But he betrayed my good faith and twisted it into a personal attack. It really pains me that a fellow Jew would do such a thing.
::::Debresser writes as if he is completely impartial, but his actions speak otherwise. Normally, an impartial editor would recognize that lots of RS is weightier than no RS, accept the survey closure, and move on to something else. Instead, he disruptively reverted edits complying with the closure, even posting a repressive warning on my talk page after a single such edit, and he opened up a review on the survey closure. After even that didn't yield his desired result, he forum shopped and opened the thread above, using the excuse of a blog article published ''after'' the survey closed to claim CANVASSING affected the survey, without any other real evidence. When due to lack of new content the above thread was closed, he himself opened up this thread. This whole saga is nearly half a year long. All these edits show that his opinions themselves are quite partial to a particular POV, and by his own arguments, he should be disqualified himself. In contrast, I never forum shopped, I never violated 3RR, and I never tried to deceive and intimidate others from editing, the way he and Sir Joseph did ]. Given his and Sir Joseph's disruptive editing, I regret to request that they both be topic banned until they cool down. ] (]) 19:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


:::::] (]) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::], ] did not violate POV, but your false analysis to try to discredit Musashiaharon for the sake of trying to "win" this ANI, however, does. ] (]) 18:57, 26 February 2017 (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)
::::: @Ad Orientem I find this last comment to be out of line. ] (]) 19:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::1. It's not an olive branch to make an edit with a antagonizing comment.
:::::: Case in point, ], I did not mean what I said as a personal attack against you, but as an observation of what you are currently doing to ] (based on how they expressed how they felt about what you did here on your talk page) and to other editors in this discussion, and now to me. I only want an honest, civil discussion between all perspectives involved, and I did not appreciate your trying to get rid of ]'s perspective from this discussion. ] (]) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (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)
*This is a waste of time. As the RFC was to remove cats that have been there for a long time, even if people wanted to disregard the better evidence-based arguments of the keep voters, the alternative is 'no consensus' which would result in... not having the cats removed as there is clearly no consensus to remove them. We dont re-run RFCs from the beginning just because one side doesnt like the result. Unless either side can magically drum up lots of editors who care about Jew-categorisation, or the remove faction can actually find an argument that doesnt revolve around attempting to disqualify the opposition, let this go already as it is only dragging out the same result. ] (]) 19:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:: '''To the contrary''': the category had been absent for over 3 years by the time the Rfc was closed! ] (]) 19:14, 26 February 2017 (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)
:: In addition, I refuse to believe that you are willing to endorse a result that was obtained by drumming up editors to willingly influence its outcome. That is something Misplaced Pages should not allow. ] (]) 19:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


== Unattributed machine translations by Loukus999 ==
Jeffgr9 has expressed a similar POV on my talkpage as Musashiaharon. He is evidently emotional about this. The question is if where the fine line goes that divides between just having a POV or making edits and taking stances ''because of that POV''. On the one hand we can't disqualify editors for having a POV, when however they admit that their edits are because of that POV, that is where IMHO the line should be drawn. ] (]) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Loukus999 pblocked from articlespace. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::], I was civilly disagreeing with a statement you made to ] on your talk page, and trying to inquire as to whether you understood the factual perspective that other editors may have regarding this issue. ] (]) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Loukus999}}
:"He is evidently emotional"? Have you been reading a handbook on gaslighting or something? This went to an RFC. It was closed in line with policy and guidance. The RFC had a closure review where no one actually raised any legitimate argument for overturning it other than 'I dont agree with it'. If this is meant to be another close challenge, then you need to provide some evidence rather than just making personal jibes at other editors. ] (]) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
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 .
:: On the contrary, Debresser, given that every editor has ''some'' POV, the first step to writing objectively is to identify one's own POV, and make sure that this does not skew the final result. Thus I never used political or religious arguments in the survey; whenever I cited a religious source, it was always in the context of understanding the traditionally strong Jewish cultural ties to the Middle East, and that usage was justifiable ]. This was only possible because I examined myself and carefully separated what was a valid argument on WP and what was not. RS is a valid argument; ] is not. ] (]) 19:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::But if the ''true'' ratio of editors on both sides of the dispute was 7:2, then "closed in line with policy and guidance" amounts to an oversight. And must be reexamined. ] 19:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::], the ratio of editors, as I noted above, was not what Debresser claimed here. ] (]) 20:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::If true, I'm making the point. ] 20:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::Not really sure where you are getting 7:2. There are at least 6 editors accounted for on the keep side, and if we are discounting blocked users, ] has also been blocked for paid editing. Hence the tally, if we cared, really stands at 6:6 after removing the banned users. However, in the survey itself, there is no sign of foul play, and the closers (who were extremely patient, despite the harassment from the remove side) judged by arguments and sources, not vote tallies, in accord with Wiki policy. Without any new arguments, there is no need to reopen, and this is just another case of forum shopping. ] (]) 21:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::<s>If it's true that you yourself only "made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue," then you can see where I'm starting to get 7:2.</s> ] 11:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


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.
*'''Overturn to no consensus''' which would default to keeping the categories. It was a close RfC, and the arguments for keep are arguably better, but the meatpuppetry allegations are concerning if difficult to prove. Having editors who main editing history is only on/largely surrounding ''disputes'' surrounding controversies surrounding Jews/Jewish-related topics as an cursory glance at the contributions of the editors raised here is enough for me to think that the complaint might have some validity. It is not enough, however, for me to think that the RfC should be overturned to the opposite result. ] (]) 19:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::], Thank you for your response as well. The allegations of WP:MEAT, however, do not seem to have a complete basis in fact, as I noted above. Only 1 editor out of 9 mentioned editors by Debresser, who made a revert after the RfC/survey decision was reached, has been unaccounted as of yet. The rest of the editors have been consistent contributors with no sockpuppetry. ] (]) 20:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:: Wrong: "no consensus" would mean keep the way it was, and the extra category '''was absent for over 3 years'''. ] would lead to the same conclusion. ] (]) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::One of the accounts accounted for by an IP is a CU blocked sock. There is also an account with both red user and talk page commenting here trying to help account for the IPs. Bellezzasolo has less than 200 edits, long absences between editing, and when they come back, they edit in discussions involving Jewish topics and their userpage. PA Math Prof also mainly edits in sprints surrounding controversial Jewish topics, and their edit before the comment on the RfC was to create a userpage, which is a common tactic for abusers of multiple accounts because they realize the anti-red-link bias that some on Misplaced Pages have. Bubbecraft's sole contribution before the RfC was to add claims about terrorism to a Palestinian human rights activist BLP as links that were reverted. After they commented on the RfC, they created a userpage very similar to PA Math Prof. Sorry, this accounting for accounts looks like it could easily be a case of off-wiki canvassing of meatpuppets or even socking. I'm more inclined now to even support overturning to the opposite consensus rather than no consensus. Also, Debresser is right, the burden does appear to be on those attempting to keep not those trying to remove. ] (]) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (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)
::::], I would like to bring up some contrary points to your response:
: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)
::::ChronoFrog (the account to which I think you refer in the first line) may be "blocked," but not at the time of the RfC and Survey; that user also .
::Well, it's a direct translation of one of the ceb.wiki machine generated articles. ] (]) 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] made significant edits, although that editor had less edits in quantity than that of more experienced editors; I think condemning Bellezzasolo for being new would violate ].
:::Looks like the most recent creation before that is ], a translation of ] that is still unattributed. ] (]) 05:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand you may have experience with people who try to deceive others on Misplaced Pages for the purposes of trying to win arguments. However, there is no apparent evidence given here or otherwise linking ] to any sockpuppets.
:], 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)
::::] provided significant sources and arguments during the RfC; but again, there is no evidence of meat puppetry in their instance. In fact, PA Math Prof started editing in 2015 and created their user page in October 2016, and thus appears to be a newer user than Bubbecraft, who started editing in 2013 and created their user page September 2016. I would not assume any relation at all, but rather, as both users became more active in 2016 during the RfC/survey period (a long time), they added to their profiles. They also have different occupations, personal interests, and narratives. To assume otherwise would be to not ].
::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:
::::Finally, again, the original RfC was channeled into a survey, for which the arguments and evidence would be counted more than the number of editors who !voted, and that was how the RfC was decided (by a third party)—by the strength of the arguments, not the number of people voting. So, it seems the accusations of meatpuppetry only serve to confuse this forum from the facts presented in the actual RfC and survey.
::* Don't clean up their article afterwards, leaving it with grammatical mistakes, broken refs, and broken templates.
::::Also, in any case, the "burden of evidence" was significantly provided, and that was what, again, caused the decision of the RfC/survey to be in favor of "keep." Thank you very much for your consideration. ] (]) 10:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::* 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 ==
The main problem I have with this dispute being dragged out is that even ''if'' there was any sound evidence in support of Debresser's canvassing allegations, the keep side's arguments were still stronger overall (see ]). And contrary to Debresser's earlier claims, I did provide RS. Loads of it. The remove side provided nothing. I'd be open to revisiting the RFC if reasoned and well sourced counter arguments to the keep side's posts are presented, but so far I have not seen any of that: just a lot of kicking and screaming (and conspiracy theories).] (]) 21:08, 26 February 2017 (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)}}
{{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)
I think this should be taken into consideration as well.


: 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)
Both users (Debresser and Sir Joseph) are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on this category, along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This constitutes disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you.
::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)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1
::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)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1
*:{{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)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017
::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)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop
::Agreed. ]] 16:45, 13 January 2025 (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:
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descent] (]) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{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)
:That seems rather hasty. They might have gotten impatient, but we're not going to neglect the issues they've raised: possible MEAT, SPA, and Socking crucially involved. ] 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::], There does not seem to be any evidence of WP:MEAT. ] (]) 10:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
===Proposal: Beeblebrox is not allowed to accept copyright-related unblock requests ===
:::That's where my comment is: paint me confused. There seems to be strong evidence of SPAs being canvassed, however. ] 11:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{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 ==
*I'm taking the liberty of closing this thread, because it is developing the same problems as the other endless thread on the exact same topic. Any admin may overturn my close, but otherwise in my opinion the only obvious solution to this endless discussion is my advice in the close box. ] (]) 11:11, 27 February 2017 (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.
===7:3 ratio?===
<blockquote>The Rfc on ], which is related to this issue, turns out to have been loaded with WP:MEAT: ] ('']'') is a blocked sock, ] ('']'') never edited after that discussion, <s>] made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue,<s> ] ('']'') was a one-edit account, and ] ('']'') made no edits between that Rfc and this WP:ANI issue.</blockquote>


* was deleted for ]
That's the possible ''<s>7:2</s> 7:3 ratio'' I'm referring to is based on (strikeout are my emphasis—contributions added by me). ] 11:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


* on ] and ] grounds
:In my opinion that is not really the fault of the closer, because no indication was provided that that had occurred. My detailed advice in the close of this thread will eliminate that problem in a new RfC. ] (]) 11:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


* on ] and ]
::I agree that no fault should be attributed to the closer—my point is about it invalidating the ''closure.'' I agree with your own close and hope a new RfC will resolve this. ] 12:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


*They've been warned about ] and .
:::Well, to get a consensus ''here'' to overturn the closure of that RfC might take as much or more work than creating a new one that is devoid of SPAs and canvassed people. The discussion above to overturn it seemed to be getting nowhere because the editors who approve of the close were hijacking the discussion. So it seems a fresh RfC would be the answer, unless an admin (you?) wants to simply unilaterally step in and re-close the previous one (considering the improper !votes). I agree that an overturn would be simpler, but only if it were done via a quick admin action rather than an endless discussion about it. ] (]) 12:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

::::Fair point, I have re-closed as '''no consensus'''. Thereby bringing this long, drawn-out saga to a resolution. ] 12:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in )

*Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ]

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

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)

: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)
::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)
* Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the ] policy. I propose and '''support''' a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating ], they gain that necessary understanding/competence. ] (]) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''SUPPORT''' ban from article creation. ] ] 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' article creation ban. ] (]) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:*'''Support''' Ban.
:] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with ]. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored.
::I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. ] (]) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! ] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. ] 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: ]. There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) ] (]) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This is editor is still creating dog poor articles ]. This is the second in days thats been speedied. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== Tendentious name changing by MŞ46 ==
{{atop|1=Pblock from mainspace applied. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:18, 15 January 2025 (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.

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 .

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.

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)
* 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)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== User:Jwa05002 and User:RowanElder Making Ableist Comments On WP:Killing of Jordan Neely Talk Page, Threats In Lead ==
== Inappropriate revision deletion at Beating of Ken Tsang ==
{{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)}}
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)

:Oh forgot to @] ] (]) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) {{rpa}}

*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)
*: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. ] (]) 07:29, 13 January 2025 (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)
*:::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. ] (]) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (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}}.
*::::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 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)
*::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)
*:::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)
:(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 @] 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" @]'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)
::"You don't buy it"? Where is the assumption of good faith here? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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)
On 24 February ], an administrator, amended some content at ] that they alleged had been "copied" from the cited source. The content allegedly copied amounted to the phrases '''"Chinese state mouthpiece ''People's Daily''"''' and '''"sentencing of the seven officers"'''. The administrator then warned my on me talk page for copyright violations.
*: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)
*::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)
I ] that I had accidentally reused the two phrases, but did not "copy" them – and considering that I have wrote most of the 24,000 byte article and the rest of it wasn't "copied", I do not consider this a blatant instance of copyright violation. Many other news sources refer to the ''People's Daily'' or its subsidiary ''Global Times'' as a "state mouthpiece" (, ). In Chinese the case is known as the "seven police officers case" (七警案) and the phrase "seven officers" is widely used in English media also.
*::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.
Anyway, while I reject the accusation of "copying", I accepted the admin's edits. Then this morning I find that the admin has under the ] criterion.
:That seems important to say before any finer-grained points. I am sorry for that, completely and unreservedly. ] (]) 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you, I accept your apology ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::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).
RD1 cannot apply in this instance. For one, it is not a "blatant" copyright violation. Secondly, the revision deletions remove "attribution to non-infringing contributors", meaning RD1 cannot be used in this case. ''']''' (]) 06:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
: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.
:Well, I can see the names of the editors just fine. Only the revision text was hidden, not the usernames, which if memory serves is the key point here. The text is definitively identical, so copyright concerns definitively exist. Whether a revision deletion for one small paragraph is called for I am not certain. ] (], ]) 09:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
: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)
== ] might need a review ==
:"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)
*'''Support''' as mover. I think Jwa's comments speak for themselves. '']''<sup>]</sup> 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. --] 14:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''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)
I'm loathe to "report" someone, but I've got a strange feeling by looking at their contribution history and think some eyes would help. What drew my attention was this . Please look at the images in question. This change is bordering troll territory.] (]) 08:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''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)
:I concur that there seems to be a pattern here. I'll leave the user (who recently blanked his or her talk page) a note. ] 08:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - what ever happened to discussing ]? I'm with Jéské Couriano, why is Jwa still unblocked?--] 00:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::It was a rather rubbish choice of infobox image, but I've seen worse. How about ]? Cliffmore may have thought "This image of Madeleine Albright is better because it's more up to date", which is a common line of reasoning with infobox images. Overall, I don't think that the edits by Cliffmore were vandalism, although they may have been unhelpful.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 08:33, 26 February 2017 (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)
:::S/he is replacing official images with ones that are either or where the image is positioned to as if it's viewing the article. Subtle, I know. ] 08:43, 26 February 2017 (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)
::::Infobox images are a notorious trouble spot. I'm not a great fan of the of Hillary Clinton because of the wide eyes and forced grin, but this is how politicians often appear in their official photos. With a famous person, there will usually be many images to choose from on Commons, but the best policy is to ask on the talk page before changing the infobox image.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 09:03, 26 February 2017 (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)
:::::That's what I told the user. He is to use talk pages from now on. ] 09:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::I can remember when we were having near daily revert wars over the infobox image in ]. The more high profile the article, the more important it is to discuss a proposed change on the talk page and get a consensus.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 09:12, 26 February 2017 (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)
:::::::This looks like a different type of situation, where the image selection is used as a provocation. ] 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I was trying to help out and update more recent photos of people since all of the people in question have aged very much since their current photo was taken. Pretty obvious - not a troll. - Cliffmore
:::::::::Please use article talk pages to propose changes to images from now on. ] 19:32, 27 February 2017 (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)
== Editing behavioral problems by ] ==
::I just left a message on his talk page just giving him a heads up. ] (]) 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{atop|result={{nac}} Filing premature. Admin left user a note.<br> <sup><font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font>]]</sup> 18:30, 26 February 2017 (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)
I noticed since two days ago that ] has been editing a bunch of ] related articles and replacing the word "a" to "an" in the articles' introductory sentence. (Ex: "] is '''an''' Filipino fantasy television series by GMA Network." - see ). His reason was the words "Philippine" and "Filipino" sounded like a vowel and he even cited two US shows (] and ]) that uses the word "an" to its introductory sentence. I have already talked to him through ]'s talk page (see discussion ), since Oripaypaykim reverted Kazaro's edits and the latter posted a warning to the former, but he is keep on insisting that we should use the word "an" to those articles, even if it is grammatically incorrect (both verbal and written) and he cannot provide a proper source or an instance that the word "an" was used for "Philippine" or "Filipino". Kindly advise what should be the approach on this dispute. Kazaro will most likely engage in an edit war to revert back what he have edited. Thank you. -] (]) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (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)
:Can't really list here preemptively to an edit war (anyway, for that there's ]), but I left the user a note. ] 09:54, 26 February 2017 (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}} {{abot}}


== Constant misuse of WP:AIV and Twinkle by new editor == ==== Addition- policy revival and reform ====
] 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)
] has demonstrated time in and time again that they ''do not understand correct procedure for warning users, when it's appropriate to use Twinkle warning templates, or using ] to report vandalism''. Administrator intervention is needed, as the editor does not understand the responsibility involved with using tools such as Twinkle, as shown in unheeded warnings such as this. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::Yeah ]] 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: If he's filing inappropriate reports, maybe someone could point him toward the ]. ] (]) 14:40, 26 February 2017 (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)
:: Agreed with ]. Also, pointing the user to ] and helping to educate them on ] and ] would be helpful as well. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I’ll start to draft a thing for village pump tonight thanks ]] 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Oshwah}} Except they are not responding to inquiries regarding their edits. Other editors have already tried. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::] Been working on this dis regard my horrible format its word vomit ]] 20:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It appears that the user ''is'' responding to messages and edits made on their talk page. I do see ''one'' message on the user's talk page regarding a revert to vandalism that he didn't warn the editor for, but I don't see any others nor do I see any notices about bad reports left at AIV by the user. Am I missing something? ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 01:27, 28 February 2017 (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)
::::::{{ping|Oshwah}} I'd be willing to mentor the user in fighting vandalism, if they agree to be mentored. ] ] 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::] Here ]] 16:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::] - '''EXCELLENT!!!''' ''Right on, dude''!!! This is the ''exact solution'' that we need here; it'll give mentoring to the user and help them to learn and become experienced, and it'll address the concerns reported here. ], what do you think? :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 15:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


===Talk page misuse (Jwa05002)===
== ] ==
{{atop|CEngelbrecht2 topic banned for 6 months by Bishonen as an arbtitration enforcement action. ] (]) 01:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)}} {{atop|Talk-page access yanked by Moneytrees. ] (]) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
says it all. Talk page access needs to be yanked.
{{User|CEngelbrecht2}} is a ] dedicated to promoting the ], something that the general scientific community views with skepticism, but stop short of calling "fringe". The problem is that CEngelbrecht2 is extremely zealous in his belief in said hypothesis, and has been extremely uncivil and condescending towards editors skeptical of the hypothesis (diffs will be categorized and provided below) at ] and the ], usually comparing the other editors to geocentrists and himself and his fellow believers to Galileo Galilei.


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)
He was by {{User|Bishonen}}, but only to ], a medieval advocate of the heliocentric universe who was executed for unrelated heresy, then went on to post a . At this point,it seems more like he's just trolling rather than actually trying to be helpful.


:@], please see above comment by Jasper. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Diffs:'''
::Oh brother…. ]] 05:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


==Extended confirmed gaming by Sairamb1407==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:13, 16 January 2025 (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)
: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 ===
{{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)
::And here are diffs for Sairamb1407's adding of puff pieces to the same article: . ] (]) 21:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Both accounts are now blocked as socks of each other.--] (]) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Me (DragonofBatley) ==


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)
:Notifying other editors from the wider discussions {{Ping|PamD}}, {{Ping|Noswall59}}, {{Ping|Rupples}}, {{Ping|Crouch, Swale}}, {{Ping|KeithD}}, {{Ping|SchroCat}}, {{Ping|Tryptofish}}, {{Ping|Cremastra}} and {{Ping|Voice of Clam}}. If I missed anyone else sorry ] (]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ]&nbsp;] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of ], ], ] and now redirected ] and ]. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. ] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. ] (]) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
:I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
:I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
:Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --] (]) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@]: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? ] (]/]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? ] (]) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::These are good points.
:::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ]&nbsp;] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). {{u|KJP1}} provided a for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they ''understand'' source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. ]&nbsp;] 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements ''and'' that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::That's a great point, you're right, @]. ]&nbsp;] 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I responded to @] earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with ] ] and ]. Also conflict edit was not directed at @], there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. ] (]) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
*:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
The issues are ] and source integrity; ]; and the suggestion of ] while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.


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


That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. ] (]) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I am requesting the community impose nothing less than a '''topic ban'''. While a block at this point would be preventative rather than punative, it would be pointless unless it was an indef. A temporary block, even if it lasted until the current fire dies down, wouldn't do because he'd likely just light it again the moment it expires.


: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)
That being said, I would also '''support''' any other sanctions against him, whether stronger or weaker.
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)
] (]) 13:15, 26 February 2017 (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.
:: ] (]) 13:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


:There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done.
:::Sorry, I can only see you demand, that I fall in line. (I don't understand how I notify the user.) ] (]) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::You don't have to notify anybody, ]; the notification requirement is only for when you create a new report on this board. IP, the ] ''is'' a fringe topic, and CEngelbrecht2 has been alerted to the arbcom sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe topics. Also I warned them sharply yesterday that they were getting close to a topic ban on account of their personal attacks, ], and nasty tone. Any admin — me, for instance — can topic ban them if they don't clean up their act, so I don't see much need for a ''community'' topic ban at this juncture. The community bans are more cumbersome. CEngelbrecht2's contributions to ] after my warning admittedly don't show great awareness of how close they are to a ban, but for my part I'm not ready to topic ban just yet. Of course anybody who wants to support the idea of a community ban is free to weigh in below. ] &#124; ] 15:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
:::::What is it you expect of me? Applaud years of gross censorship and misrepresentation of a divisive topic? You want to ban me for keep speaking up about complete neglect of encyclopedic principles, just because a majority feels like it? That is Thrasymachus in a nutshell. How can I not see parables with the likes of Bruno? ] (]) 15:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::<small>As a point of clarification, if you bring up the conduct of another editor in an existing discussion and that editor is not either already notified or an existing participant, it's generally accepted you should notify them. This doesn't apply here but I just want to explain that even if you aren't starting a new thread you need to consider notification requirements. ] (]) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)</small>


: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.
Case in point: his two responses to this thread. ] (]) 16:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:When the response to David Attenborough for on all this was just a snorting "wishful thinking" and "he is irrelevant," I'm sorry, we can't trust the majority to be impartial. It's an academic scandal, that this is still to be treated as pseudoscience. ] (]) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


:For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, <b>this needs to be a final warning</b> in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -] (]) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, at least they seem to confine their activities to the talk page for the time being, rather than POV'ing in the article; that's a plus. On the other hand, the grandstanding/persecution complex verbiage is at best annoying and at worst disruptive, and should stop. (That article is actually rather inclusive at the moment, and if anything needs a dose of further qualifiers, e.g. in the 'vernix' section - without a functional connection to adaptive features, the existence of a ] proves exactly zip.) -- <span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 17:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? ] (]/]) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:The suggested function of both human and harbour seal vernix in newborns is additional insulation in water to increase the chances of survival for the first few hours of the infant's life. In case you're wondering. ] (]) 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —] (]) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
:: There's no indication that it actually has this function, so a connection is lacking. Anyway, content issue - let's not discuss this here.-- <span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 18:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Right, no indication. 'Cause fat doesn't insulate in water. Nothing to note from the only other known species where newborns are covered in fat is harbour seals, an aquatic. Nothing to see here. ] (]) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Were you born with flippers? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::'Cause we all know, that the aquatic ideas are arguing human beings being old mermaids. It's not a perfectly rational idea about us being old tropical beach apes, no, no. Animal Planet is all we need, don't have to read what's actually being suggested. It's so much easier to read a cartoon with Charles Darwin depicted as a chimp than to actually spell your way through On The Origin of Species. We know what this is all about, even though we don't. Let's just have a cheap laugh while fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense. ] (]) 20:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Enough. If you guys don't stop this off-topic bickering, I'm going to start thinking about taking admin action myself. ] (]) 20:19, 26 February 2017 (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.)
*'''Topic banned.''' "Fondling ourselves at better peoples' expense"? That's it. Apparently my warning made no impression on CEngelbrecht2 at all. I've topic banned them for six months from ] and related pages, broadly construed. ], before you come back with a zinger about censorship, do please look up ] to see what "topic banned" means. You're no longer allowed to discuss your favorite hypothesis on ''any'' page, including ANI and your own talkpage, other than to appeal the topic ban. You are of course allowed to do that, and the notice I have posted on your page tells you the ways and venues you can do it in. ] &#124; ] 22:39, 26 February 2017 (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.
* Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content calling it "irrelevant". At ], PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article ], , cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, ], the entire Architecture section was . However, their church articles always contain something like {{tq|The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings.}} sourced to ''achurchnearyou.com'', often as a separate "Present day" section. of ] (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose: {{tq|All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs.}} (And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing ] and ], both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.)
* Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as , was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.)
* Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles.
There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note {{U|Liz}} has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that ] instance (at the end of , which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. ] (]) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'd like to point to ]: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. ] (]) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).
::I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at ] and ], and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: ].
::I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.
::Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for ], which is also the example of a lead in ], starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{tl|cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.
::Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.
::The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, ] (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).
::It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.
::Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. ]] 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

=== 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. ] (]/]) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've got some experience of ] investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. ] (]) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/] in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --] (]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —] (]) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
::::::::To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @] has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. ] (]) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the ]. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. ] (]) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks ] (]) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? ]] 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{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)

== Stalking from @Iruka13 ==
*{{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.

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 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>

: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)
::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.

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.

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 ''']'''. 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: 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.”
] (]) 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)
::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 ==
{{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)
{{Abot}}
*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)

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

] 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.

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 <!-- 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 ==
*{{pagelinks|List of Trotskyist organizations by country}}

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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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)
:::Communist organisations taking chunks out of one another? Well, I never — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::To be fair, there is nothing more insulting than being incorrectly called a Trotskyist. ] (]/]) 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. <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)
::<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>

== Has this editor been gaming to get EC? ==
{{atop|status=Game off|1=Editor does not appear to be gaming the system. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:16, 15 January 2025 (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)
::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)
:::I wondered about that also, perhaps they didn’t know they had made 500 edots
::: That’s why I brought it here. ] ] 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 ] and then ] three minutes later is pretty suggestive of gaming. ] &#124; ] 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:56, 14 January 2025 (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)
::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)
:::<small>(They have the best username, though! ] &#124; ] 15:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC).)</small>
:::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)
::::Agreed. ] ] 20:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Ehm... == == User:MeetSingh316 ==
{{atop
{{atop|Indefs all around. {{nac}} ] (]) 12:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)}}
| result = Blocked. ] (]/]) 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Just received on my talk page. Sounds like a pretty clear confirmation of my earlier assumption; ]. - ] (]) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
}}
:After a cursory review I ''think'' they are editing in good faith, just really badly. Language issues may have a bit to do with it. I've left them a message but anything further along these lines would easily qualify as ] and need a mop to clean up. -- ] (]) 05:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|MeetSingh316}}
::Section title of ''FU'' (as opposed to ''F-Off'') is a clear ] no matter how poor one's language—regardless, we likely have issues of sheer ]. ] 06:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{user|MeetSingh316}}, after edit warring on ] and claiming to be "correct misinformation", appears to have ]. ] ]∫] 01:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Add "idiots like you" to that as well. I don't think we should ] his seemingly feigned "problems" with the English language (regardless of the blunt personal attacks); he is ostensibly "capable" enough to copy-paste information word for word verbatim from , and drop it on in a newly created section, on no less than two ocassions. - ] (]) 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::EDIT; there's '''clear''' IP socking by the person in question going on as well. Look how IP beautifully added the '''very same''' edit summary and content on the '''very same''' article, as user "Roman Sakhan" later would. Then, came in, same range/geolocation, supporting Roman Sakhans/94.102.184.35 edit. And to complete the circus act, another IP of the ''exact same range and exact same geolocation'' as all mentioned IPs (), literally just came in as well to support Roman Sakhan/94.102.184.35/94.102.184.26. This is a <u>clear</u> violation of ] as well, apart from the washlist of other issues. Now there simply ''can't'' be anymore doubt about ]. - ] (]) 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::Everyone indefed. ] 07:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== User:مشرا ==
==Admin has brainfart; carnage ensues==
{{atop
{{Atop|result=This will be a massacre to remember. All joking aside, I don't see what result can come from this discussion, given Hoary's lengthy and seemingly innocent explanation. {{Nac}} ''']]]''' 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)}}
| status = BLOCKED
] has recently racked up ].


| result = User indeffed. {{nac}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Having various more pressing engagements, I (Hoary) decided to ignore them and instead to look around the immense swamp of sketches in draftspace. Most of what I saw there was horrible, but some was promising (for example, ). Realizing that drafts that hadn't been tinkered with for half a year could be summarily zapped, I resolved to look at a lot of the older ones, tinker with those I thought I could productively tinker with, zap what I strongly thought that nobody would/could turn into decent articles, and ignore the remainder. Which led to a very unfamiliar and, I must admit, slightly pleasurable feeling: wielding not a janitorial mop but a janitorial machine gun.
}}
{{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>


: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)
] was not amused, and ]. (In case you're as ignorant of these matters as I was: only AfC submissions can be summarily executed after sleeping for six months.)
::], for some reason your signature doesn't seem to have worked there. ] (]) 08:44, 15 January 2025 (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 ==
Duh! Well, I've gone through what I deleted, and undeleted almost all. Almost all of those I left deleted ''were'' AfC submissions; one was a childish hoax. I think and hope I've resuscitated all that I shouldn't have killed off, regardless of their quality (actual or potential).
{{atop|1=Block applied directly to the range. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:14, 15 January 2025 (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>
:This has now been sorted. Thanks Zzuuzz. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 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. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools ==
Another admin may wish to take a look, in order to see if anything else I screwed up needs unscrewing. Anyway, you'll be happy to hear that I've quite sated my appetite for zapping moribund drafts. (I might continue looking for and improving the better ones, though.) -- ] (]) 08:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|PEPSI697}}
:One question remains - Trout or stocks? ]]] 12:18, 27 February 2017 (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.
::Personally, I prefer an excruciatingly drawn-out ArbCom case followed by a desysop and a site-ban. Much more entertaining. ] (]) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Tar and feather at the next Wikimeet. ] (]) 14:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Give them the bureaucrat bit. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::: Make them an Arb, the ensuing mails they'd have to respond to would be punishment enough. --] <sup>] </sup> 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Make them watch '']''. The ultimate punishment. ''']]]''' 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*Make him host the Oscars! --] (]) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' (passing by) - I don't have anything to add, but that list... Someone is having a bad day. ''']]]''' 17:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{Ab}}


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.
== Block evasion ''Human like you'' at 213.74.186.109 ==
{{atop|result=Blocked and article semi-protected again. ] 09:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)}}
(cc {{ping|Oshwah|Juliancolton|Ian.thomson|Black Kite}})
is another block evasion of indef blocked user 'Human like you' - reinstalling the same material in as 'Human like you' and their sock puppets, also the IP that they registered the account 'Human like you'. This IP has been used by the same user at least since Sep 2016. User 'Human like you' has used before (some are not listed via ]). The last block evasion at the same IP was discussed
. ] (]) 09:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{ab}}


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.
== A possible rangeblock? ==
{{atop|result=I got the help I wanted and I'm able to deal with it now, thanks ]. ] (]) 13:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)}}
There's a weird situation at ] that's been going on for about a month, with a number of IPs from the same two ranges making and reverting weird additions. The first one was , and the most recent today was , with lots more similar ones in between. The IPs so far have been:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
Sometimes a 182 IP adds it and a 202 IP reverts, and vice versa. They have all had warnings and/or blocks but have ignored them. I've semi-protected the article for now, but I fear that might just send them to another one, so can anyone please work out if any range blocks might be appropriate? The 182 ones geolocate to Mumbai (ISP "Mahanagar Telephone Nigam"), and the 202 ones to other parts of Maharashtra (ISP "IT-Networking Department"). ] (]) 09:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
* The rangeblock for the 202s are easy, 202.58.102.0/23 and there's no collateral there, but the 182s are more problematic (big ranges, and busy) and would probably have to be blocked individually. The 202 addresses have also been disruptive at ], although not for over a month now. ] 10:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks. I've blocked 202.58.102.0/23 for a month and I've unprotected the article again, and I'll block any 182 ones that show up individually (the latest 182 edit is five days old now). ] (]) 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::I just noticed that the IP, ], that reverted the latest one also geolocates to Mumbai. V6 ones should be relatively easy to deal with, but I'll only block ones that make the additions and not the ones that revert them. ] (]) 10:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}


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.
== User: 188.68.0.130 ==


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)
User {{userlinks|188.68.0.130}} is making numerous edits by adding, unsourced, same name edits to various organisations detail. This is clearly vandalism, which I have reverted and warned IP - but IP keeps re-inserting. Suggest a block and further warning. Thank you.] (]) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (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)
'''Support block:''' Accoding to the IP's contributions, it states clear that it is repeatedly posting unnecessary content, mostly on the ] article. ] (]) 13:25, 27 February 2017 (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 ===
::IP appears to be same person as {{userlinks|24.140.238.212}}, exactly same "edits" with same name wrongly inserted. ] (]) 13:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


The first thing I want to do is apologise and then address the actions. It was not my intention to make anyone feel victimised or attacked. I want a good relationship with all the contributors on Misplaced Pages and to learn from them if I can. I realise that I am a little out of my depth with RC patrolling and so I'm going to take a break to better educate myself on vandalism or policy violation. I wonder if the community has any suggestions on how I can contribute in another way to Misplaced Pages that will not cause me these kinds of problems. Misplaced Pages is a big thing in my life and gives me a sense of achievement and I really want this to continue. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::IP is now using {{userlinks|95.85.80.195}} for the same vandalism. ] (]) 13:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::More ip reported: {{ping|37.200.67.62}}. please protect all stock exchange articles as he use different ip to vandal. ] ]] 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


:I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the ] or looking at the ]? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion.
:Appears to have gone stale, report at ] if vandalism starts again, if it is targeted at specific pages try ]. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== User:Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari's editing ==
== Harrassment by user:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS ==
{{atop|status=Plblocked|1=Blocked from article space. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{archive top|result=Admin intervention asked for and provided: 1. that warning by ] came out of the blue and is unwarranted. I suspect it's a cumulative kind of thing, jps having taken issue with some of ]'s article edits and comments on the talk page; the matter of the ape ("it is very similar") does indeed smack of OR, but that doesn't warrant a "final warning". jps obviously could have chosen a more effective, diplomatic, and collegial way to express their concern. 2. there is no need for any admin ''action'', besides, perhaps, a keen eye on the talk page and possibly involvement with an AE case. There is no harassment here; "feeling threatened" by an editor giving a warning is not harassment. Chris55 is also reminded of the basic truth that jps does not have administrative tools. ] (]) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Tyrhonejustinemarasiganmartinfloresmallari}}
I am feeling threatened by this user who has given me a "final warning" of blocking for placing a picture on a page with . Since the picture is very similar to a number of photos published in the scientific articles cited in that section I can only interpret his action as trying to enforce the removal of the photo (which he has done) by bullying. ] (]) 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{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)
:The user in question has been warned a number of times about their editing with respect to ]. Since this is a matter relevant to arbitration-imposed discretionary sanctions, the correct place to discuss this would be ]. ] (]) 13:46, 27 February 2017 (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)
*I am not sure posting a picture of an Ape wading on the article ] was a fantastic idea but it was in a section that discusses primate wading. As purely illustrative its not completely out of scope but it should obviously not be included as serious evidence supporting it (AAH). ] (]) 14:01, 27 February 2017 (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)}}
*I'm sorry, but ''what''? Cue article saying: {{tq|Most primates naturally walk on two feet when wading in deeper water}}...and cue image of {{tq|A gorilla wading on two legs using a stick to gauge water depth}} which is almost verbatim from the image description from the ], {{tq|This adult female gorilla in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, northern Congo, uses a branch as a walking stick to gauge the water's depth}} So... exactly what part of this was original? Or are we just knee-jerk reverting and templating with a level four warning for an apparently on-topic image that apparently faithfully reproduces the information from the source? ] 14:15, 27 February 2017 (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.
::The original research bit is that the picture has nothing to do with proving/disproving the AAH. Its just a gorilla wading. Likewise the source of the picture is nothing to do with AAH. Its essentially using a picture of an ape in water to lend credence to the AAH. The 'not completely out of scope' bit I referred to earlier was that it is directly in a section about primates wading.. and the picture is indeed, a wading primate. Personally I wouldnt have used it, its the sort of lazy 'look here is a picture of someone/thing doing it! it must be true!' more suited to tabloids than an encyclopedia. ] (]) 14:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I gotta say that while I'm not expert on the evolutionary history of primates, to give someone a "final warning" for this, which is by no means OR in any sense of the term, is ''wrong''. There may be other valid reasons to not include the image in the article, but this is ] stuff, not ]/] stuff. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span>
:::So is there an actual diff where the user claims this picture proves something, or is that just a blatant assumption of bad faith? ] 14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::AGF is (justifiably in some cases) in short supply at the AAH article at the moment. There has been a recent influx of the lunatic fringe. (See Fringe noticeboard and elwsewhere). ] (]) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::So I'm going to take that as a ''no'', that there actually isn't a diff where the user claimed this picture proved something. ] 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::No, I've added no other content wrt that picture. I just happened across it on a Smithsonian site on the same subject giving credit to Wikicommons. Mentioning the stick was purely in the interests of accuracy but it's irrelevant in the context. ] (]) 19:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*This is a '''content dispute''' that should be discussed and resolved (via ]) on the article's talk page (with an eye to ], ], etc.). If necessary, also take it up on ]. The issue should '''''not''''' be resolved by posting ridiculous "final warning" templates on anyone's talk page. {{U|9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS}}, stop that nonsense or you yourself will be ]. -- ] (]) 14:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
**{{U|Softlavender}}, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin. Thanks. ] (])
***{{U|9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS}} Then take it from me, as I am an admin - stop that "final warning" nonsense and deal with what is simply a ''content issue'' by discussion on the relevant talk page. ] (]) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
****Noted. I will take all further matters to ]. ] (]) 15:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*****I am not sure what in this discussion suggests to you that WP:AE would be an appropriate forum for this discussion. ] (]) 15:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
******There is a long history on ] of adding original research and content that violates ], ], ], and ]. Typically the best way to handle this kind of protracted content dispute which crosses many accounts and has a history that exhausts the ] of many admins has been to ask for administrators to use discretionary sanction remedies at the affected pages since those admins active at ] have more experience with dealing with these kinds of disputes. I note that the complainant has already been notified of this possibility by a different user: which is why I thought a final warning was more appropriate. If I failed in that, I apologize, but clearly the other user and I are on the same page now. ] (]) 15:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::*{{tq|That you have the audacity to continue to argue that your original research is worthy of inclusion in an article under discretionary sanctions is amazing. If I see you continuing, I will be recommending some sort of remedy from WP:AE.}} Yes, clearly on the same page of...threatening to take someone to AE over a picture. ] 16:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::*Yeah, I don't see any indication that you and {{U|Chris55}} are "on the same page now" (if that were so he wouldn't have filed this ANI). I do not see any indication whatsoever of any attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. I do see that you escalated the confrontation on the user's talkpage after you issued the final warning: . -- ] (]) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


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.
I would point out that an ip, possibly jps, has once again after it became the subject of this complaint and was restored by an admin. ] (]) 21:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


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 just want to put here as an example of the sort of comments JPS has been responding to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
* ] ] 23:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


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)
Well as I have been mentioned.


: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)
I mentioned in my ANI that this user has a long history of abusing other users. This is not just about this one incident (and I note this is going the same way as the last ANI against this user "but this is only one incident, we cannot block for one incident". It is not about one incident, it is about a pattern on behavior going back years. So this user is not going to get any real meaningful sanction and will go away with this attitude expressed here "expect me to resist you in Fringe articles quite often. You're not the first editor who has insisted on such a philosophy, but I pride myself on surviving where many of the rest of them have left or been shown the door". He does not think the rules apply to him (that is clear form my interaction with him) and that he treats ANI's (and AE) as another tool in his pseudoscience. Frankly this is a joke now.] (]) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (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)
===Propose block===
: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)
{{archive top|Clearly rejected. Seems that jps has been a bit of a ] but understands it. A proposal for a restriction on user warnings might be more likely to fly. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)}}
:I think this is a convincing case for SPI, please start it. ] (]) 12:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I propose a block of no less than six months for 9SG.../jps.
::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 ==
:# The user already has a block log as long as my arm, including I count four indeffs.
:# It's been all of two weeks since they were over the 14th stupidest edit war in recent memory.
:# They are, as far as I can tell, reliably reported here almost monthly for ''something'', usually some form of incivility.
:# They clearly don't give a damn, and no one with a block log like ''that'' needs or deserves ''yet more'' final warnings, on top of the ones they've already ignored.


I struggle to find a user who's been given more ] by the community, and I'm all ears if someone has a better example, but otherwise '''support''' as proposer. ] 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Timothyjosephwood}}, I assume this is for 9SG.../jps? ] (]) 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::Yes. Clarified. ] 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Whilst the "final warning" on Chris55's page is clearly excessive (and jps really needs not to do that again), I ''would'' have removed the image myself as it does veer towards ]. As the image detail says, the image is there not to illustrate that an ape can happily wade in water, but that they can use a tool - a stick - to help themselves do so. Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was ''not'' happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth. Use of the image without context does present itself to the reader as "Look, an ape wading in water, this backs up the hypothesis" - which it of course it doesn't. A warning (which has already been given) is enough here. ] 15:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::How you get original research out of the image is beyond me, and as far as I can tell is basically the same thing as saying we should remove the image from ], because showing a chiropractor and a patient clearly somehow indicates that it is an effective medical treatment. ] 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::"{{xt|Indeed, the detail points out that the ape was ''not'' happy wading in the water until she used the tool to test its depth.}}" That's not what the journal article says: the ape waded all the way up to her waist. Only then did she go back out to get a long stick to poke the area in front of her, to either test the firmness of the swamp floor or measure depth beyond that point . Chris55 points out on his usertalk that "Similar drawings/photos are given in all the scientific papers cited (e.g. Niemitz, 2002, Niemtitz, 2010, Kuliukis 2011) but are copyright. That one happened already to be in WikiCommons." . -- ] (]) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::: Without context, the image is still useless. As would any image of a hominid in water. We ''know'' that hominids are not totally averse to water, that brings nothing new to this pseudoscientific theory. ] 18:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::That is... actually completely irrelevant, even if there wasn't an entire paragraph of context, which there is. ] 18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::: Except that paragraph, apart from one sentence (the one about bonobos), doesn't actually have any relevance to the image. ] 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::: For what it's worth, I do completely agree that if you ]. ] 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::: Oh, that's clever. Well done. ] 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''oppose''' jps overreacted badly with their final warning, Chris55 overreacted badly bringing it here, and this makes three for three bad overreactions. No blocks needed for anyone; this discussion stands as enough warning now as to the folly of overreacting.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' This has been a long-running issue, across several of their line-noise account names (Just ''why'' does an editor have to keep renaming themselves to stop their username being obvious in history logs? Hmmm.). Also see what must be the 13th stupidest edit war, ], why globalsecurity.org needs to be banned as a source because globalresearch.ca is a bad site. This editor's attitude to others here is just unworkable. ] (]) 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''oppose six-month block, but''' ... jps clearly overreacted, and some sort of sanction might be warranted. As to the edit in question, in my view, in a section titled "Wading and bipedalism", it's appropriate to show an image of a wading biped, so I've just readded the image with a slightly different caption. To which edit, jps has responded on my talk page by suggesting that my edit was . ] ] 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:* And he's right. I'd revert you myself, but I seriously can't be bothered with this nonsense. We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Misplaced Pages already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. ] 18:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': User has had 9 different usernames in 5 years. The last four have been 20-character random-character gibberish. I think this is both UAA territory and evasive, and I suggest a ban on usernames moves and a recommendation that he choose ] and stick to it. I have no comment as yet on the block proposal, but the usernames alone are quite a red flag and problematic. ] (]) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::Per ] this is not a block-on-sight username, you could try ] if you like. I've never heard of a restriction on renames before, and since they did them all properly all their contribs and their block are intact, so nothing is actually hidden, although their block log is an ungodly mess. ] (]) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::] said "{{tq|this is likely the last time we'll be accepting another username change request from you}}" at the move request (]). That sounds reasonable to me. ] (]) 22:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't think anything that jps has done here deserves an immediate long term block as response. -- ] (]) 18:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Per Black Kite, we certainly do have enough pseudo-scientific bullshite in Misplaced Pages already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality. -] ] 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::It's not a triviality, its a long term patter of disruptive editing, but either way is fine with me. It's not like there won't be another ANI thread on him in a few weeks. ] 18:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::: If something is presented that deserves a long block, I'll totally agree with it. There simply isn't anything here, though. ] 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::This user consistently removes content or makes changes to the AAH page without prior discussion on the Talk page. This involves content which has been on the page for years and was not previously contested by other anti-AAH wiki editors. I second the request to have him blocked please <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::::I hardly think you're an impartial judge of article editing on that topic. Your "anti-AAH" editors are more often than not trying to follow ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::: Well of course you would, being one of the proponents of this pseudoscience. I think we'll stick to the opinions of those who aren't involved in trying to insert this type of content into an encyclopedia. ] 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. A warning template (more so a final warning) is clearly excessive and not very conducive to discussion. But if we issued six month blocks every time someone posted a warning template that someone objected to, we would rapidly find ourselves out of editors. Personally, I think warning templates for the most part are a bad idea. They are often interpreted as a threat, and sometimes they are merely an empty threat, as in this case, since there was nothing particularly sanctionable about the image in question. Warning templates in edge cases like this lead to conflict escalation rather than resolution. This is a content dispute. jps, don't add any more warning templates, unless you really think repeating the behavior could actually result in sanctions. ] (]) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
**TBH, the purpose of the warning was supposed to be indicating that my next stop was/is going to be ]. We don't have a template for that, I tried and failed to find the closest one. ] (]) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Although 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS seems to have taken the wrong tack here (and he's admitted the error right above this comment, and he's given a reasonable explanation for it), his efforts fall well short of anything that could be reasonably called harassment. ] (]) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - To be clear, my proposal here came in the heels of {{tq|Softlavender, please do not ping me for your own jollies as you are not an admin}}, which is about the variety of flippant dismissal I've come to expect. Since they've defaulted on one of their two perennial ways of avoiding sanctions, ''missing the point while apologizing'', as we saw in , (the other of course being ignoring the thread completely as in ), then nothing will surely happen and we can probably just close this and move on with our lives. ] 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Why bother, it will only be overturned like every other ban. Frankly this user is never going to be punished, and is going to only get worse as they come to think they are more important then anyone else. This kind of BS will drive users away, as JPs seems to be quite proud of having done in the past.] (]) 10:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
=== Proposed editing restriction ===
I propose the following:
;], aka jps (noting in passing his habit of changing username), is indefinitely banned from placing any warning above level 2 on a user talk page, and from placing more than one warning in respect of any user for any one content dispute, and from opening more than one noticeboard thread in respect of any single content dispute, with the sole exception of 3RR notifications at ].
I think that balances the obsessive behaviour leading to the issue with the need to protect the project by not placing excessive barriers to managing simple edit warring. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:Could I request that I could also open ]s when I see suspicious behavior, or are those considered something different than a "noticeboard thread"? If I can file SPIs, I am happy to abide by this restriction whether this proposal passes or not. ] (]) 12:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


* '''Oppose''' - Excessive use of warning templates isn't the problem. Persistent, long-term incivility and battleground behavior is the problem, and a token sanction isn't the solution. ] 13:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::Well he is not going to get a block, so what other solution is there, apart from a slap on the wrist and a solemn promise to behave until the next ANI, when the whole process will be repeated, with the same exoneration's and promises to learn.] (]) 13:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Yep. ] 14:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' at this point in time. Either jps fixes the battleground behavior or gives us enough ] to actually do something. At the moment, though, we barely have enough to tie the knot. I do have a heavy metal ruler that yall can borrow in the meantime. ] (]) 14:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
=== Alternative Proposed editing restriction ===
A ban on posting any warnings. A ban on making any pseudoscience edits without first agreement on talk pages. A final final final warning on making PA's. A ban on any further user name changes.] (]) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*Just as a procedural note, that's four completely different things that you're asking for agreement on. Woe to the closing admin who has to decipher that all. ] (]) 14:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::Maybe I am missing something, up till this point I have said there will be no agreement on action. This is my first proposal here. Could you please provide the diffs for me asking for agreement on anything else?] (]) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::You're asking for four different editing restrictions. Admin A likes options 1 and 3, admin B likes none of them, admin C likes all of them, and admin D thinks that 3 is a crock of shite but likes the rest. Which (if any) are put into place? I'm not saying you ''can't'' propose all four measures, I was just questioning the need to have such a different range of proposals in one motion. ] (]) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Sorry I misunderstood. The problem is this user has been banned, they have been warned (Finally, at least three times) they have been given a gentle slap on the wrist. And seem to think that they will always "win". There needs to be a clear and unequivocal message that no they do not have special privileges that mean they can do what the hell they like. I am trying to craft a proposal that covers all their malafactions. The other proposal will not (and does not) do that. Frankly I have no idea what will really work beyond some kind of edit ban on topics and talk pages. This is an attempt to achieve something close to that.] (]) 14:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:], this kind of gratuitous piling on, combined with some nonsense accusations, is seriously frowned upon by administrators and others. ] (]) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)7
:No. I'm not doing this where we try to craft out a restriction that requires its own table of contents, and try to haggle for the best sanction we can get. If the community doesn't support ''actual'' sanctions, ]. ] 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*I actually like the ban on further namechanges. The nature of the names, compounded by the changes, is just annoying, and if it's not designed to create awkwardness for people trying to ping you or find your page to post on, etc, jps (I actually can't be arsed to create a ping, arghh), then I wish you'd explain what it ''is'' designed for. I've read the explanation on your userpage and am unimpressed. ("I prefer to be judged on the quality of my contributions rather than the name of this account." Bah.) I'd actually welcome one more change, to a name that is possible to remember and spell, and then no more.
:That said, I strongly oppose any kind of editing restriction. I completely agree with ]'s sentiment above: {{tq|We have enough pseudo-scientific bollocks in Misplaced Pages already without people trying to get one of its major opponents blocked for a triviality.}}. Or banned, or otherwise impeded. ] &#124; ] 15:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC).
*I just want to point out that, unless I'm misremembering, JPS has been doxxed before. That being said, I agree completely with Bishonen's comments above. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 16:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


{{userlinks|Adrikshit}}, has been continuously adding ] content or changing referenced content, often relating to Bhojpuri related articles.
== Rahul Dhanwani's behaviour ==
{{atop|result=Blocked for a month. Previous block was 2 weeks, and next one will be indef. He'd previously been told that if he included the edit again without consensus he'd be blocked. Instead, he's started edit-warring on the talk page, despite the fact that consensus is ''totally'' against his proposed edit. I would say that ] is relevant, but frankly it's heading more towards ]. ] 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)}}
{{User:Rahul Dhanwani}} wants/wanted to include a free kick stat in the ] article . After he got reverted by several users , , and he took it to the talk page ]. As you can see it was closed as not a single editor agreed with him. Now he started a new discussion right after the "old" one was closed ]. He got reverted and talked to on his own talk page and per edit summary but he keeps on reverting at the talkpage (not the article so far). So, what do we do? He should ]... ] (]) 18:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{ab}}


*'''Some examples:''' , .
== Springchickensoup disruptive and not engaging in consensus building ==
*{{Userlinks|Springchickensoup}}


*'''Examples of ]''': , .
A range of problems are still apparent despite >3,500 edits over three months and lots of editors attempting to give feedback. All of this is pretty disruptive.


1. Deletion of article talk page content. Described simply as "edit" which {{u|Ghmyrtle}} picked up. Mass archiving of talk pages then followed at articles which didn't need archiving, thus blanking talk pages; also directing the bot to wrong articles , . {{u|Mutt Lunker}} questioned these actions but had an inadequate response, and they didn’t clear up the mess (deleting links to archives rather than restoring talk page material).) *'''Examples of ]''': , , , , .


2. Repeatedly using uninformative or false edit summaries. Advice given back in December and again in February by {{u|MusikAnimal}} but quick return to summaries like "edit" , and "update". *'''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: ,
3 Not signing comments on talk pages (not including proper details or including the details of other editors), I raised with them in December but it is still going on , Springchickensoup even going back to remove their details and responding with hostility, e.g. ]. I raised this with this editor, so did {{u|PamD}} and then me again.
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 ==
4. Edit warring rather than BRD. This was happening in December but is still going on.
{{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)
5. Persistently adding inappropriate or non-existent categories. I raised this in December then January but this has continued
::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. ==
6. Failure to discuss. One instance of Mutt Lunker raising issues led to being taken to ANI in February ] Feedback given by {{u|Kendall-K1}} was scorned then an odd report filed at UfAA . After offering advice {{u|J3Mrs}} was also rebuked. Springchickensoup’s talk page's history has been blanked of criticisms several times, e.g. 23 Feb 2017, 5 Feb 2017, and 18 Dec 2016.


7. Repeatedly adding navboxes which do not relate to the page on which they are placed, e.g., readded and


8. Unconstructive editing of infoboxes, such as distance of miles to two decimal places, or location by centimetre. Raised by {{u|Jellyman}} , PamD, {{u|Twiceuponatime}} and others offered advice too. Again the response was hostile and evasive. 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)
Some of this was also raised at WikiProject Scotland ] but Springchickensoup hasn't posted there. In December I brought this to ANI at ] hoping for some engagement, but the response was unco-operative and included a groundless revenge complaint ]. It feels like we're running out of things to try. ] (]) 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*I endorse ]'s summary above. I had no dealings with Springchickensoup until earlier today, when I posted on their talk page about problems with categories which I had encountered while working through ]. Then something twigged with me that there might be more of a history, so I looked at the user talk page's history and saw lots of deleted content. That turned out to be mostly attempts by other editors to raise problems, and usually being dismissed quite rudely.
:I noted that Chris had made the most recent attempts to engage, so I posted on Chris's talk that it looked to me that there was some sort of {{tq|there is some sort of NOTHERE/IDHT/COMPETENCE problem}}. I followed that up with a brief summary of the issues I had seen. Congrats to Chris for doing the spade-work of putting this together.
:I want to believe that this editor means well, but I see only occasional glimmers of an ability to work consensually, and that is a pre-requisite for editing here. There is a very big problem rate with these edits, and the ] hostility to other editors makes things uncomfortable as well as unfruitful for those who do try to engage.
:AFAICS, this adds up to a huge net negative. Springchickensoup has already left behind a lot of messes for others to clean up, and unless some brakes are applied, the cleanup list is only going to grow.
:At a minimum, I would suggest some community sanctions, such as: 1RR, requirement to use informative and honest edit summaries, civility warnings, and a requirement to use dispute resolution mechanisms. I wouldn't oppose a block, but am inclined to try a little ] first. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


:{{ping|Sammi Brie}} Your take? ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'll note that I also concur with the above assessments. (Apologies if this repeats some of the points made in the post immediately above as they were evidently being drafted at the same time.) This new user is highly active and clearly has much enthusiasm for the project, but only if absolutely on their terms. The bulk of their considerable number of edits are poorly expressed and drafted, do not conform to MOS, are poorly organised, poorly sourced, non-notable or actively - if often unintentionally - highly disruptive. It is understandable that, as a new editor, their level of ability in editing is limited but they have shown utter contempt for any advice or constructive criticism offered to them by numerous other editors. As noted above, they routinely leave misleading edit summaries, have made significant attempts to obscure critical talk page threads and have brought two vexatious referrals here to ANI in regard to criticism of their editing. Their unwillingness to desist from disruptive patterns of editing, coupled with their huge edit rate has tied up much time and effort of other editors in checking, reverting and vainly attempting to provide feedback, advice and criticism. I fear there is still much of their work to be checked, amended, corrected or outrightly reverted or deleted. They may have made some positive contributions but overwhelmingly they are a significant drain on resources, due to their behaviour. This user's enthusiams could be an asset to the project but after several months without showing an iota of willingness to accept the good faith of others, the point has been reached where it has to be indicated that they can not expect to behave like this and be allowed to continue to participate here. ] (]) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (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)


== Bad redirects by User:StrexcorpEmployee ==
::::I've been trying to help this editor on ] for some time, tidying up, pointing out that section headings need proper formatting, and that we write in complete sentences, etc. I've now been included in their general vituperative remarks about destructive editors - ie those who apply Misplaced Pages norms instead of letting this editor do their own thing. It's getting tedious. Their editing is enthusiastic but unskilled, and they don't like getting advice or help. Mileages to London expressed to two decimal points - their response when I said that whole miles was enough precision was "As for being over-precise, again just nonsense, no distance on Misplaced Pages is precise as the points the measurements are taken from are not fixed point." which seems like ] rather than an editor willing to listen to more experienced helpful editors. See also ] for hostile response to a suggestion on how to improve the article. ]] 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{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)}}
:::::Just worked out how I ever got involved: of ], 22 Nov 2016 after Springchickensoup had made a vast number of edits, must have shown up on my notifications as linking to a page I'd created, almost certainly a dab page: it's massively overlinked and looks quite spectacular if you've got dab page links showing in orange as per gadget! ]] 22:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|StrexcorpEmployee}}
:I have had little interaction with Springchickensoup but have found him confrontational and bizarre. He brought me to UAA with a charge I didn't understand, something about being dead or being three different people, and did not notify me of the discussion. Nothing came of that. None of my interaction with him amounts to anything deserving any kind of sanction, but together with all the stuff reported by Drchriswilliams, some of which I observed but did not participate in, is troubling. I can't really think of what a reasonable response might be. ] (]) 01:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
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:
:I wish I'd seen Springchickensoup sooner, and I'm sure several people have tried to help them, and yes, their stuff is going to need further cleaning up. But their last edit appears to be db-usering their talk page on Feb. 24 after blanking their user page, so it looks as if they are gone. I did my best with one of their articles and then left a friendly message on their talk page, in case they think again, but I suspect they're gone and that this section is therefore moot. ] (]) 21:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* ] → ]
::Thanks for offering them some friendly advice. I see you also cleaned up some of the problems at ]. Springchickensoup had been approached about these problems already- I raised galleries with them and pointed them towards policy weeks before they created that article.
* ] → ]
::While they were involved in two discussions at ANI in December they added the db-user template to their talk page then added a pointy rationale and was promptly offered an explanation about why it would not be erased. At that point they posted a message suggesting they had left, placing a further scornful message on their user page which replaced one from a fortnight before that was also rejecting community input. Springchickensoup returned 23 days later and was immediately adding problematic categories again and then continued making edits at pace. ] (]) 22:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]


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.
== WikiThugs on Ahmad Mohamad Clock Incident ==
{{atop|{{nac}} OP blocked for 31 hrs. ] (]) 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)}}
WikiThugs are trying to obstruct editing on that article, while concealing the fact of that obstruction. They are also repeatedly using their power to 'comment out' discussions that expose material they don't want to see discussed. They are also using threats of blocking to intimidate people who object to their malicious actions. If you want them informed, the staff will do that. I don't know how to. ] (]) 20:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:The user in question is asking for a ]; they have repeatedly leveled unsupported speculative insinuations and outright accusations of criminality against a minor child, in the face of repeated warnings. ] (]) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::I have learned that "boomerang" has come to mean, effectively, on WP as "Retaliating against a person FOR THE SPECIFIC OFFENSE of complaining about other editors' behavior, regardless and without considering the actions of those other editors". That seems to be coming true here, too. And if "blocking" keeps an editor from continuing writing on the WP:ANI, that amounts to further malicious obstruction: What kind of insane system would not only block a person from editing an article, AND block him from editing a Talk page, and STILL AGAIN block him from engaging in a complaint process HE HAS NEVER MISUSED? ] (]) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


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).
::One of many possible examples: the user describes the article subject (a child) and his family as "terrorist wannabes" - violating BLP, NOTFORUM, RS, SOAPBOX and half a dozen other policies and guidelines. Simply hatting and redacting has not worked, so it's time for this user to be blocked. ] (]) 21:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

:I guess you are pretending that there is some sharp and distinct line between discussing a subject, and discussing the article. I have repeatedly complained about misconduct BY YOU on that article. You ignore it, except you try to conceal it. And you are writing into your own words a misrepresentation of what I actually wrote. ] (]) 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Preferably an indef block but a redirect TBAN would probably suffice. ]&nbsp;] 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:We tried to educate the user about our ] (''especially'' when involving a minor); about observing ] and avoiding ]; about how Misplaced Pages is ]; on how ] relies on ] ] and giving them their ]. All for naught thus far. ] 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

::No, you didn't do that. Another editor merely referred to WP:BLP, but did not apply that policy SPECIFICALLY to the article in question, and not to my comments at all. As if you thought it was somehow self-evident, or that your buddies would back you up without further discussion. Well, maybe you were right in thinking that? Congrats for helping ruin WP. ] (]) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (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)
:::For the record, I did . And didn't even mention ]... ] 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::That was quick, thanks! ]&nbsp;] 20:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::The OP is clearly ] and needs a block. IMO the talk page posts need looking at and possible R/D's - though it would take some sifting through. ]&#124;] 21:27, 27 February 2017 (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)
:::Blocked 31 hours for disruption. It's clear they are here to ] and almost anytime anyone starts with "Wiki bullying" almost out the gate, nothing good is going to come from it. ] (]) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (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}} {{abot}}


== Two editors and WineGUI ==
==]==
{{atop
{{User|Johnpacklambert}}, who has a history of nominating articles for deletion without considering ] , has recently nominated a large number of sport-related articles in the same vein. The vast majority have been closed as Speedy Keep or Keep or on their way to it, due to the appropriate notability guidelines and/or GNG not being considered. Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. Requests for the editor to withdraw clearly improper nominations were ignored and attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have been reverted as "rubbish" . Clearly the editor intends to continue this sort of disruptive behaviour and I would request some sort of warning be placed upon him to cease and desist. Not directly related to the issue of sports bio AFDs, but unfortunately has a track record of deleting any attempt to discuss his editing on his talk page rather than engaging in discussion which makes it difficult to address this without escalating the issue. --- ] (]) 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
| result = Danger89 indef'd per ]. Justcomic1 indef'd as an ] sock. ] (]/]) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* The user also has a habit of ignoring questions to him in the AFD discussions he's started (or participated in). Recent examples are , , , , , , , and . Similarrly, questions on his talk page about these nominations are also ignored - and ] (]) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
}}
*I am also concerned about this user's AfD nominations and contributions, which have become increasingly spurious, and at times seems to lack any type of research or basic source searches to qualify deletion. In addition to the examples above, see ] (full disclosure: I contributed to the discussion), where another user stated that the nominator and JPL "need remedial lessons in how to run a google search". The manner in which the user has been repeatedly asked to discuss valid concerns about their contributions on their talk page (diffs: , , , , , , , , ), but simply deletes the posts using edit summaries such as "delete rubbish" (diffs: , , ) does not inspire confidence, and I view it as disrespectful and insulting to refer to valid concerns by multiple users as "rubbish". <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Danger89}}
* Note that present, ongoing discussions regarding this user are occurring at ] and ]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Justcosmic1}}
* It's time some restrictions or sanctions were levied against JPL for his abuse of AfD. There are a number of disturbing things here:
*{{articlelinks|WineGUI}}
*# He's a volume editor, nominating articles faster than the community can assess or fix them,
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:
*# There are a disturbing number of "clear misses". I'm talking articles that almost no one in the community would ever consider deleting. Articles where a quick perusal of sources necessitates a keep vote.
* 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).
*# His editing patterns suggest contempt for certain vocations rather than actual adherence to GNG or to specific notability guidelines. , he announces disagreement with certain guidelines. If you're going to nominate articles at the clip he does, you need to understand and adhere to GNG and specific notability guidelines.
* 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"
*# There's pretty clearly IDHT when he ignores or deletes comments telling him to stand down.
* 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.
*# The last round of mass deletions resulted in a gentleman's agreement where he agreeing to not mass-nom in exchange for not being sanctioned. He's violated said agreement.
* 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.
:::<span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
* 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.
*'''Ctl-Alt-Del'''. JPL has a habit of doing something like this periodically. It's tedious and timewasting, but the storm usually passes fairly soon, and then all goes quiet again for another 6 months or a year. So please can somebody within reach just reboot him in safe mode? --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
*I don't always agree with JPL, but I don't think he needs to be sanctioned. I think he is a good faith editor who disagrees with some of the notability guidelines or tries to push the limits of them on cases where the community isn't willing to play ball. Let him know that the community asks that he refrain from mass nominations and be done with it. ] (]) 23:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:*Hasn't that been done before? Part of the problem, is that the community has been trying to engage him, but he ignored comments/questions on AFD pages, and ignores question on his own talk page. When really pushed on his talk page, instead of engaging he blanks. ] (]) 23:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:*Which achieves precisely nothing. He's already been told that and yet he continues. The issue is not only with the mass deletions - if they were all or almost all spot on there wouldn't be a problem - but with the fact that he is clearly refusing to engage with notability criteria. So if we ignore it as you suggest, this will just happen again in a few months in relation to another topic. It's never ending. --- ] (]) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::*Whst everyone is hinting at here and that Drmies has mentioned below if things don't change is a topic ban from AfD. That is a big deal because AfD is a core area of our project. JPL might need to take a break from it for a while, but I would much rather that be his call than a sanction. Based on the actions and some of the comments here I do think he needs to improve, but I don't think a topic ban in necessary yet. ] (]) 04:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::*But that is exactly where we left things in September with the pageant ANI discussion, and six months later here we are again --- ] (]) 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* Oh flipping heck. I seem to remember a previous issue where JPL was nominating beauty pageant contestants and was at least having a 50/50 success rate. These footballer AfDs are failing badly; whether one believes they are notable or not, they pass our current requirements. Advice to JPL: just stop it, please. ] 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


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)
There is precedent for the community telling even very experienced and large contributors to this project, that if they are not willing to abide by the policies and guidelines, then they can not continue to edit. ] (]) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*JPL usually brings a deletionist mindset to AfD, and his contributions (both noms and !votes) often come across as lazy. It's dangerous to the 'pedia when an editor habitually pushes for deletion without giving the article in question sufficient consideration. It's also troubling that JPL has demonstrated an unwillingness to engage with those who are concerned. ] (]) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I will try to respond better to comments in the future. <s>However it is often hard to respond to comments when they are down right rude and combative. I am engaging with notability criteria, despite the false claims otherwise. There are huge long lists of what makes a footballer notable, so long lists that one line articles with one internal team source other survive. It is hard to be willing to engage when some of the posts are so insulting and rude.</s>] (]) 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
**], your effort is appreciated, though I note that you take back what you gave immediately by blaming other editors. If that effort fails, however, do not be surprised to see a proposal for a topic ban from AfD participation, which I will support. That area is already contentious enough. ] (]) 03:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
***If you appreciate my efforts then why would you ban me?] (]) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
****Please read more carefully: ''if that effort fails''. There comes a time when effort isn't enough and we start talking competence. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, your comment below, where you indicated you looked at the guidelines ''after'' these nominations, is indicative of...well, you figure it out. ] (]) 04:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*****It indicates human fraility. I not only read multiple times through the long list of professional leagues to make sure that Farukh Abitov had not played on any, I also read through the long descriptor of what qualified as an international competition to pass the notability guidelines. It does not come out and say "if the person has been on a national team they are notable", and the sourcing and information as I read it did not seem to indicate to me that they had played in any games that met the description given in the notability for football description. I will admit I was wrong in this determination. I am trying to be calm in my consideration of this issue. I am sorry for blanking my talk page with an overly quick caustic remark. However it seemed wiser at the time than getting into a discussion on my talk page that was likely to be even more heated. I would point readers to ] as an example of the very combative arguments sometimes thrown against legitimate and well reasoned attempts to nominate an article for deletion. The general tone of such make it often feel that the best course of action in creating an AfD is to create the AfD and never read it afterword. Especially when they result the way the one on Rosalie Smith did, which was in delete.] (]) 05:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
<s>*PageantUpdater has also engaged in canvassing to try to get more participation in this discussion.] (]) 03:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''I am not the only person who was not fully aware that Kyrkystan's national team was playing at Tier-1 competition level. This caused a lot of discussion on my talk page back and forth. There is an extremely long and complex list of Fully Professional football leagues, and I have consistently tried to review it when making nominations for deletion. I have tried to find the least combative way to respond to comments left on my talk page. Sometimes that is just blanking them out, and letting the discussion on the article in question run its course without saying anything else there. It is very hard to patient and calmly read through multiple attacks on the level of time spent studying a matter. This is even more so the case when PageantUpdater speedy keep voted on some of my hockey nominations with a false assertion that a particular league gave automatic notability for playing, when I had read the explicit guidelines in the notability for hockeyplayers guidelines that explicitly list the leagues that grant such, and do not list that league at all. I will admit I should not have used the term rubbish, but I was frustrated with the harping on me.] (]) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)</s>
*'''Comment''' I am sorry for my mistakes. I now realize that playing on a national team is generally a sign of notability, although it is sometimes hard to tell if they were at the adult national team or a non-qualifying junior national team. I will seek to fully understand this question before acting in the future. Another issue that has come up relates to players in the Phillipine Basketball League. In those cases it is almost looking like it might be worth considering revising our guidelines since they do not include that league.] (]) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*I hope I am not coming off as a jerk with this comment as Johnpacklambert has a long and distinguished career here on Misplaced Pages, however if this editor is unfamiliar or feels confused over the rules of ] or the notability requirements of other projects, then perhaps he shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion. AFD nominations such as these (see here , , ,) while possibly made in good faith aren't helpful to the project. My suggestion is that Johnpacklambert take a break from nominating articles for deletion and resume when he feels refreshed and feels s/he understands the guidelines better. Anyway that is only my opinion, hope it helps thank you. ] (]) 04:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
**I wish when I had first come on Misplaced Pages I had realized I could put spaces in my name. Even though the way my signature now appears it has spaces, people seem to ignore this. I know this is a minor quibble, but I am part of the group that think all Misplaced Pages users should have to sign in and use their real names, and the fact that I do not fully comport to this bothers me. I am not sure that saying anything of substance about the issues of the notability guidelines for footballers will be helpful. I have come to better understand the issue with national teams, and have withdrawn a nomination because of this added understanding. On the other hand there is ] which shows that there are in fact articles on non-notable footballers that I am catching.] (]) 04:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::*Sorry about your name John Pack Lambert, I'll keep it in mind the next time I address you. ] (]) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'd like to know why, for the second time in less than a year, it's taken an ANI discussion to get John Pack Lambert to come to the table and discuss his AFD editing. It shouldn't have to come to this. The exact same thing happened with the previous lengthy , where numerous editors requests on his talk page to discuss the issue were ignored and/or blanked and the matter thus had to be escalated. In my view his claim to now recognises his "human frailty" etc etc is disingenuous given he showed zero desire to consider the matter until I started this report and in fact described our complaints as "rubbish". There were plenty such opportunities, such as Rikster's request on 23 February for John Pack Lambert to withdraw a nomination of an ''Olympian'' which was . The sports notability guidelines are not rocket science either, being new to the subject I all but had them grasped straight away, except for a fail with ] where I later recognised and quickly corrected my error. I'm also not happy that I've been of once saying "I should stop commenting on the internet and go wash toilets" by John Pack Lambert which is . I know that my language over the pageant article issue wasn't appropriate on many occasions but not once did I stoop that low. I am also consistently being called a "he" instead of a "she" which I somewhat understand given it's not obvious from my user page - but I have corrected him on this before. --- ] (]) 05:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


== Al-Naghawi page ==
*I thought that perhaps this discussion was coming to a closure. But at the same time, I see that ] is continuing to contribute to AFD discussions, and has even started a new one, in the midst of this; not that anything at first blush seems in appropriate, but I'd have thought that at least stopping new AFDs until people can catch up would have been appropriate, recalling ]. I also noticed commentary he made about this ANI , referring to it as ''"an attack"'' and an ''"attempt at revenge for my success in getting so many Miss America contestant articles deleted"''. I can tell you, that if someone else didn't start this ANI, I was about to myself, and it's neither an attack, nor have I ever edited or even read a beauty contest wiki page; I'm concerned that you see this as some kind of vendetta, when there were several people who shared the concern, some of which have not encountered you before. At the same time, you've justified not contributing to AFD discussions you've started because is it ''"hard to respond to comments when they are down right rude and combative"''. And yet, I provided a list of explicit request from you for comment, none of which were rude or combative. You haven't indicated why you didn't respond to them. The list was , , , , , , , and . Also, questions on your talk page about these nominations are also ignored - and . ] (]) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*{{articlelinks|Al-Naghawi}}
:*I hadn't seen those diffs , previously: more than anything I think this proves that he believes his behaviour has been innocent. I'm not quite sure what all the other posters who commented on his AFDs were supposed to be attacking him in vengeance for but I can assure you, other than establishing a pattern of editing the other AFDs were far from my mind, I've long since given that up as a lost cause for all but a few articles. --- ] (]) 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
::Oh and I find it amusing that I was accused of ] (later struck out). All I did was notify some of the editors involved in the AFDs with "Given your comments you may be interested in the discussion at ] in regards to his sports-related AFDs"... I'm not sure how much more neutral one can get. On the other hand, JPL alerted three editors by calling this , an act of and an attack. I'd like to ask you which is more disturbing? --- ] (]) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:] is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And as well. --- ] (]) 07:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:<s>I keep trying to be calm about this, but PageantUpdater is the guy who once said I should get off the inerenet and go wash toilets.] (]) 06:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)</s>
::I never said anything of the sort and I find that accusation utterly disgusting. I challenge you to prove it and if you are unable to I believe you should be banned for making such an egregious accusation. And how many times do I need to tell you that I am a she not a he? Why do you persist in calling me a guy? --- ] (]) 06:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Not very far above she denied that she had ever said that, and tried to offer some evidence. Do you have evidence she said that? She also objected to your mischaracterizing her gender. This goes to the root of the problem I think - you are not paying attention (assuming you are not doing it deliberately). ] (]) 06:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::A quick search indicates that you (JPL) were the only one to have ever said this in the history of the project. ] (]) 06:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I never said the comment was a direct quote. I should have been clear it was a paraphrase. That being said, since it was not said by PageantUpdater, it does not really matter. However it was a paraphrase, of a comment that meant the same thing but used other words.] (]) 06:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*I am sorry. I confused this editor with someone else. That was a mistake. However I had done that confusion some time ago, and it colored my perception of the attacks that were being thrown at me. With the notion in the back of my mind that she was the one who made that comment, which I sincerely apologize for suggesting she made, it caused frustration that caused me to know it was best not to respond to a comment from her. I also did not see the statement on the person being a she. I wish I was better at saying things right.] (]) 06:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Back in the August nomination also brought by PageantUpdater she said "I will be the first to admit I haven't always handled myself very well in this situation - I've said some things that weren't overly polite". So she herself admits being rude to me. The attempt to characterize nominating a few footballers for deletion because I failed to understand fully what was and was not a Top Tier international participation by the football teams involved as being the same as the issues involved in discussions over the nominations of beauty pageant contestants is just plain inaccurate.] (]) 06:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*:# Sorry, JPL, but the issue kinda ''is'' the same. In both cases, you nominated a whole lot of articles for deletion in a very short amount of time, and many of them were "clear misses", articles that would never have been AfDed if you took a few minutes to read them and a few more to read policy and guidelines. You've essentially admitted that you nominated a bunch of footballers before fully reading and understanding the footballers' notability guideline. That's bad. Very bad.
*:# PageantUpdater (or anybody else) saying something you don't like doesn't excuse your actions. Especially when you often give worse than you get. Witness your struck-through comments above.
::<span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*Nothing I have said above is meant to say that I was wise or prudent or acted in the best way in my nomination of the articles of footballers for deletion. I see now that the bar for international play and national team membership is lower than I thought at first. I am not sure there is anything I can do to help this situation. I really hate my inability to show sincerity in typing.] (]) 07:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::*As I have already . You still clearly fail to understand what the issue is. It's not so narrow as you failing to understand what is and isn't a Tier 1 football competition, it's that you took on a subject matter you were not familiar with and went on a nominating spree without doing appropriate research to see if your nominations were valid. I'm a football fan and even I didn't know what a Tier 1 competition was, but it was pretty easy to find out. Going beyond that one specific AFD though, there are at least ten other examples of you nominating articles which quite clearly meet the notability standards, and that even when numerous editors tried to get you to slow down and reconsider your nominations you refused to withdraw the nominations or address the editors' concerns and continued on regardless. You have a pattern of being quick to judgement, as evidenced by the accusation you made about me which was clearly false, and which I had already told you was false - and I daresay by your bringing up my comment about my behaviour as if it is some sort of new thing to sting me with, when I myself had already admitted it openly here. --- ] (]) 07:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::It's not simply the notability of international players that was off. JPL's nomination of ] showed a complete lack of research into the subject as there were two English language sources already listed in the article that showed he had played numerous times in a fully professional league to pass notability guidelines. ] (]) 07:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' – I haven't had any knowledge of or interaction with ] prior to the three articles on basketball players that he recently nominated, but after learning of his long history of noncompliance and his overriding unwillingness to adjust his editing behavior – or even to take meaningful responsibility for why he is the subject of an ANI, as seen in these very comments – I agree with several users above that we've reached the point where some sort of sanction that restricts his access to the AfD process is necessary. The repeated recidivism and dismissal of other editors' legitimate complaints about his anti-collaborative editing posture are very troubling. This is far from being merely a recent problem. ] (]) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*I have admitted I was wrong in some instances. I have said I will try to do much better in the future. I will point out that nominating an article for AfD is inherently a collaborative process. It brings the most scutiny to the article. There are other avenues to seek deletion that are much less collaborative. This is not to say my acrions in doing so we always fully thought out. It is to say that calling such nominations a non-collaborative effort is higgly questionable.] (]) 12:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:*I'm not sure it's so much that the nomination isn't collaborative, but your lack of participation in the AFD, even when pinged, that is non-collaborative. ] (]) 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::*Also non-collaborative is dismissing concerns about AfDs as rubbish. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::*Hi all, thanks for all of your input in this discussion but I feel the issues have been well addressed enough already. All the issues and concerns of ]'s editing have already been voiced and the editor has apologized multiple times already for these instances. Whether or no ] changes his behavior is up to him, that is not something I or anyone else can change. I suggest per ] that people stop with this complaining of this editor unless it is new information. Many editors with long and dignified histories on Misplaced Pages are taking part in this discussion and it would be a great shame if any of them had ill feelings or stopped editing because of this discussion. Anyway that is just my opinion thanks. ] (]) 21:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


== Blocked user spamming their own talk page ==
=== Proposal: limit JPL's AFD-rate ===
{{atop|status=Called on the carpet|1=Blocked with TPA revoked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
AFAICS, there are two problems here: a) JPL not doing enough ] on AFDs, b) JPL opening too many AFDs too fast.
*{{userlinks|Ramsha Carpets}}
Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warning. —]] 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


:I've pulled TPA as well, since they can't help spamming, apparently. -- ] (]) 09:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
These two problems are inter-related. The speed of operation detracts from JPL's ability to scrutinise the articles, and the lack of scrutiny helps him work fast. So it's chicken-and-egg, and it doesn't matter which is at the root of it.
::Thank you. —]] 09:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Magian Priest's Descendant - egregious personal attacks ==
Slowing down ]'s AFD-rate will also help the community better digest whatever he does nominate.


{{userlinks|Magian Priest's Descendant}}
To keep things simple, I suggest starting with a limit of 1 AFD per day. That is, ''JPL may nominate at AFD a maximum of 1 article in any given calendar day, determined by UTC. If JPL, wants to nominate a group of articles in one discussion, they must refrain from any further AFDs for the same number of days as the count of articles nominated.''


The precise number could be reviewed upwards or downwards in future. But one per day means no more days like 26 February, where JPL started about a dozen AFDs, including about 5 or 6 inappropriate footballer AFDs. -] <small>] • (])</small> 16:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is an unreasonably low participation limit. An extremely indeoth well reasearched and fully vetted fD nomination can be done in an hour or a little more and that involves extremely well researched. I admit I acted too rashly on some of my football related AfDs. I admit I should have studied the issues in more depth. I promise to in the future seek to better understand any and all articles before I make an AfD nomination. I think creating anexplicit participation limit especially one that is so low is just plain unwise. For one tging this nomination ignores the record from my contributions back in November. There were some days that month I made quite a few deletion nominations that were well thought out, made with unquestioned understanding of the issues at hand and resulted in deletes. Formal limits like those proposed here are overly burdensome. I have been responding to each ping put on my account for the last few hours. I have been seeking to better understand our inclusion policies. I know some people look at my actions as pleading for another chance but I have to say I think it is worth giving another chance. For one thing the footb a ll nominations were made with a clear desire to understnd the scope and breadth of the meaning of fully professional leagues. I was trying to engage with the issues at hand. I have been drying to respond to every ping on my comments made over the last several hours. I think it is much better to allow editors to demonstrate a true desire to abide by the rules than to create overly restrictive limits on their activity. I think such a very soecif never ending and overly binding ban is just not reasonable. I am really, really sorry for reacting so defensively at times. I am trying to be a less contentious contributor. However a fixed limit of one AfD per day is just way way too low. I have shown an ability to create more than that that meet or exceed any demands for comprehensiveness in a day. I am the first to admit I should have acted more wisely with the football AfDs and not been so quick to take offense at my nomination being called ridiculous. I do not think a limit of one AfD per day is at all reasonable. I really think I should be given a chance to show that I have internalized a desire to do better before action ro put such stringent limits on my editing is taken.] (]) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
**JPL, that all sounds well-and-good, and I am sure that it is sincere ... but the problem is that this is far from being the first time that you have gone on an ill-considered AFD splurge, and far from being the first time that you have eventually given never-happen-again promises at ANI. It is now clear that the community's patience is being exhausted.<br />So I proposed this as a more modest restraint than the outright AFD ban which others seek, and as one which would give you the opportunity to come back in a few months and demonstrate that you had been learnt how to use AFD responsibly. So this ''is'' giving you another chance. I don't think that unrestrained AFDing is a viable option right now; I don't see the support for it. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
***Note that there are no restrictions in participating in other AFDs, or even PRODding articles (which might be a better option for some of the sure-fire ones such as ]. You can also always ask another editor to AFD an article - it's easy to see in a particular project which editors frequently AFD articles. I suppose bulk prodding can be a problem, but at least it's a lot easier to undo, and wouldn't create as much work as all the AFDs - and bulk prodding the wrong articles a lot could well up in a trip here. ] (]) 19:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' Would've suggested the same thing myself if BHG hadn't. Would also consider it JPL's "last chance" to participate productively at AfD. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 18:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as I think this is much more reasonable than a full topic ban, which I was afraid was going to be proposed. It will allow JPL to still participate in AfD, but also address the community's concerns. I would suggest that it be stated that JPL is free to appeal to AN at some reasonable time for the lifting of the restrictions. ] (]) 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
**I agree that JPL should be free to appeal to AN to have the limit raised or removed. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
***But it could also go in the other direction. If he's creating AfDs at a lower volume, but continues to have the quality problems demonstrated above and in the beauty pageant fiasco, we could look at completely closing the door. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
****Sure. That is also true, but I think AN would be the preferred venue for any adjustment (stricter or looser) here to save the dramah. ] (]) 19:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - with the ban to be reviewed after 6 months. I think a 1 AFD/day limit is reasonable so that JPL can better concentrate on the required "Before" activity when proposing an AFD; and that he has the time to collaborate and respond to comments, questions and discussion during each AFD. Evidence of prior research and collaboration during AFDs can be provided after six months to request a lifting of the ban. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — ]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as CactusWriter observed, this ban will enable JPL to focus more closely on each of his nominations. JPL should also be admonished to cut out the canvassing and the bogus accusations. ] (]) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This sounds reasonable to me. Some sort of restriction needs to be put in place; we've heard the "I won't do it again" back in September and clearly we can't hold him at his word. The fact that he refused to discuss it or show any sign of understanding there was a problem until it came to ANI still needs to be addressed in my opinion, I believe it negates any supposed contrition he has that he is only accepting the problem here and now. Describing this ANI as an "attack", "vengeance" and "intimidation" only reinforces this. I'm not sure how it should be done but some sort of Insistence that he engage with concerns other editors have brought to his talk page, instead of blanking or ignoring it, would be helpful. And I would also appreciate some sort of recognition here (ie not by JPL) that the behaviour towards me - blanking my messages by calling them "rubbish", the false accusation here, the wording in the canvassing etc - is unacceptable. --- ] (]) 21:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''': As a completely involved party, on the surface this appears to be someone badly unfamiliar with the procedures of this website. At worse, this might even be some kind of prank. A lot of the protestations, claims of innocence, and pleas to other users to "support their cause" are very reminiscent of other past problems we've had with some big time problem accounts (like ], for instance). Fully support a ban on AfD activities until the user can show they know how to utilize the feature and perhaps also if the account can be verified as a legitimate editor and not an account specifically created to cause problems in this area. -]<sup>]</sup> 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per the above, though I would suggest that a flat one nomination per day rule would work better than balancing additional nominations with extra days of 0 nominations. Failing that, I would suggest flipping the standard - if JPL wishes to bulk nominate 5 similar articles, then they should do so only after 5 days of no nominations. Front-load the skip days, so to speak. But that all might be overly complex. My suggestion to JPL is to engage with other editors and work on better understanding our inclusion policies by discussing those policies, not by engaging in trial and error with the AFD process. There is no deadline - if no one else is nominating the articles that you would be nominating (but for the restriction), then perhaps waiting a day isn't going to hurt anything. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 21:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - Mass-nominating over 60 articles at AfD in once day (on February 26, 2017) is beyond extreme behavior and begs the question whether those actions were part of some strategy to "right great wrongs" on Misplaced Pages, which is not what we are here to do. This user has also mass-nominated around or above 20-30 articles at AfD in one day several times over the last year or so...so this isn't new behavior at all. Also, it's been said many times that ] ] - so that's not a valid defense for this kind of behavior at AfD.
:The fact that this user has also basically attempted to canvass several other users about this "attack" (in his words, not mine) AN/I thread indicates to me that just about anything said by this user here in this thread that appears "contrite" is likely an act now that they've been "caught". IMO, it's past time that this user's behavior at AfD be sanctioned in order to stop this kind of disruptive behavior in the future. ] (]) 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - I feel like Henry Fonda in '']''. I have interacted with Johnpacklambert on hundreds of AfDs, particularly on biographies of rap musicians, and my impression is that he has an excellent grasp of notability guidelines. ] left message on Johnpacklambert's talk page where she flagged what has come to be known as the "inappropriate footballer AFDs". The first link in her comment regarded ]. Mr. Abitov's AfD was a speedy keep, though I shake my head to see why it was "speedy", and how Johnpacklambert was in any way negligent or vexatious with his nomination. Have a look at ] subsequence discussion about Mr. Abitov's notability, which ended up on my talk page. What I found most disturbing was that PageantUpdater seemed to have voted "speedy keep" only because Johnpacklambert had initiated the nomination (see ). Next, I ran "Johnpacklambert" and "PageantUpdater" through the just to get a random and typical example of one of Johnpacklambert's deletion nominations. The second AfD in the list was ], where he wrote 13 lines of text to support his AfD. How is this a sloppy editor? In my opinion, Johnpacklambert has chosen not to write articles about butterflies and sports cars, but has instead chosen to do tons and tons of AfD's, the dirtiest job on Misplaced Pages. In doing so, he has dashed the dreams of hundreds of aspiring rappers and beauty queens (and angered the authors of their articles), but he has also, in my opinion, very much strengthened the project. ] (]) 22:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Magnolia677}} I think it's inaccurate to paint this just as a feud between PageantUpdater and JPL. JPL's talk page history is riddled with numerous other editors asking him to stop his behavior at AfD. Abitov was closed as speedy keep because a lot of other editors other than PageantUpdater voted "keep" or "speedy keep" with clear, policy-based reason. As for Kristi Addis, despite JPL's nomination being long, the article was still easily kept, because, even though the nomination was long, it still didn't get an adequate grasp of the relevant policies, nor of the article's sourcing. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Exactly. These sports-related articles were/have been in large part unanimously voted to be kept, taking me out of the picture the result would be the same. As for Magnolia's accusation that "PageantUpdater seemed to have voted "speedy keep" only because Johnpacklambert had initiated the nomination"... this is a gross misunderstanding and one I have already clarified a number of times. I couldn't sleep (unrelated) and spent half the night researching sports leagues and players so I could be confident in my votes to keep or speedy keep. Certainly not all votes were speedy keep, only those where there was notability clearly established that JPL had plainly overlooked - others where my vote was based on GNG were voted !Keep. I even voted . Yes I looked through his nominations, because once I'd read two or three it became obvious to me that others were likely flawed as well and needed addressing. --- ] (]) 23:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Comment – ] was closed as a Speedy Keep because it was clear that the article fully passed ]. The discussion and its closing had nothing to do with the fact that John Pack Lambert nominated it or the editors who took part in the deletion discussion, rather just per ] because there was obviously no point in keeping the AFD going when every body felt a speedy keep was the way to go. ] (]) 23:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - Looking through his recent edits and comments, I think Johnpacklambert wants to do the right thing, though it appears he can get carried away. I don't think this has to be a particularly long restriction. And there's lots of ways to continue to participate in a similar manner to what he has been doing. He can still comment at AFD. He can ask other editors to AFD articles that he identifies. He could even Prod articles (which might save everyone some time, assuming they are arguably not notable). I'm a bit concerned that this might demoralize him and drive him away from the project, as there is value on much of what he does. But it doesn't have to be that way. Perhaps with less AFDs, he'll have more time to participate in the discussions he's already started, which makes it easier to learn from them (and we all learn from these discussion that we start). ] (]) 23:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The article ] falls far short of what is expected for a ]. There doesn't seem to be a good objective reason to give football players a free pass in this regard as compared with other professions. Compare, for example, ] – a far better sourced article about someone who is long dead, which is still having to justify its existence. ] (]) 00:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' That is merely an opinion on the policy. You might disagree with the policy but that is not the issue here, and regardless of your opinion on it, that is what the community has agreed upon and what the AFDs currently should be judged upon. --- ] (]) 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::* ] is not a policy. ] is more debatable but deletionists usually contend that it's not a policy and AFD is full of cases where it hasn't been followed. Definite and important policies include ], ] and ]. The idea that football is special and so should be exempted from the ] is very much a point-of-view. It seems to be ] – the same sort of fan enthusiasm that has today given us ] as a featured article even though that has been nominated for deletion too. The issues seem quite debatable and so editors are entitled to discuss them. See also ] and ]. ] (]) 08:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' ] is a stub. There's nothing in there that is factually incorrect. It's referenced. It very clearly meets ]. The key issue that Johnpacklambert failed to apply ], which requires that '''D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability'''. The simplest of searches would have confirmed that he had many appearances for the ] easily passing ]. But if was all about this article, we wouldn't be here. There have been many, many recent AFDs - and this is one of the better ones to tell the truth - and likely why Johnpacklambert raised this particular one in his defence, as it was referenced - unlike several other, where the references to prove notability were already in the article. Any individual AFD wasn't terrible. But the sum total of them, many not being very good, with the consistent lack of research, following ], and then ignoring any issues raised in the discussion is why we are here - and why he's previously been here at ANI. The comparison to ] doesn't work as McCowan clearly fails ], and one has to rely on ], which is harder to research and establish. To be comparable, McCowan would have had to have passed ] but still nominated at AFD because the nominator didn't understand ] despite having been in previous AFDs where ] was clearly explained to him. ] (])
:::] is notable, but to say the article "very clearly meets ]" is disputable. ] discussion shows that determining if Abitov's team met the notability standards was not so simple. I'm not convinced this was in any way a bad faith edit by Johnpacklambert. ] (]) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::If this was such a great nomination, why did so many people go the other direction so quickly? <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Magnolia677}} the issue isn't whether John Pack Lambert is making edits in bad faith, its whether the editor understands ] and the notability requirements of the articles that are being nominated for deletion. If s/he and/or you disagrees with ] or the notability of other WikiProjects, then the issue should be raised at the WikiProject's respectful talk pages. ] (]) 01:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Magnolia677}} - He had 15 caps for his nation. Unless you know nothing about international ], it's very clear that he meets ]. Johnpacklambert has been editing for over a decade, and has contributing AFDs in the football area for months. In particular he AFDed 18 articles on August 15 and 16, 2016. In particular - it's exactly the same thing. 15 appearances for his nation (the ]). (In the other 17, he claimed they didn't meet ] because they hadn't played professionally - but all 17 had and were kept - we've had examples of that as well this week). So not only is he familiar with the project, not only has he encountered this criteria before, but he ALSO was reminded of this on days before he nominated ] for the exact same thing! The point is, that he doesn't follow ], he doesn't understand the criteria he is using for nomination, and he doesn't learn from his mistakes (or does he not read the AFD discussion after he nominates?). I don't think it was a bad faith edit. But it's still ]. ] (]) 01:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::* AfD is full of cases where the nominators get it wrong. ] would not be considered adequate for most other types of BLP and I am far from convinced that it is based upon independent and reliable sources as it mainly seems to rely upon a self-published fan site. It is of sufficiently poor quality that any patroller might nominate it. Sanctions are therefore quite inappropriate. ] (]) 08:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - I am a little hesitant to support this proposal as ] has a long and distinguished history here on Misplaced Pages and has been acting in good faith, although the editor also has a track record of nominating articles for deletion in a hasty manner. While this debate has been heated and at times personal it is important to remember that actions such as e.i. topic bans or restrictions are meant to help the project as a whole and not ]. I think ] and ] have said it best, by limiting John Pack Lambert to one AFD a day the editor will have more time to observe ] and less likely to make hasty AFDs. If in future John Pack Lambert has shown that he will be more careful and responsible with his AFD nominations then by all means the editor should have their full rights restored. Which ever way this is resolved I hope people take it in good faith and not personally. ] (]) 01:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I never said the leagues were not fully professional. I said they were not top tier leagues. At the time I was under the impression that a player had to have played in a league that was top tier and fully professional. I have since come to realize that is not what thezstandard is, but it is what I mistakenly thought it was at the time and it was what I was arguing. My most recent nominations have all focused on people who did not play in fully professional leagues except one where I clearly made a mistake. I am trying to hold hope that there is a way out of this draconian clamp down. One point, the claim above that finding sources that show a person played in games for a national team is not enough. They have to have played in games that are rated at a certain specific level by FIFA. The very wording of that section inplies that we need evidence of more than having been part of the national team. If being a member of a national team was defaylt enough to be notable that secrion of the description would be a lot better. I read the long desciptor of what games were needed to have been played in bedore nominating Abitov and from what I could tell at that point he had not played in such games. I admit that I was wrong. As I admit that I should have tried to engage in discussions more.] (]) 04:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' (sorry). I really wanted to not add further commentary here, but the amount of spurious nominations is too excessive. Per ], as well as others, such as the one I linked in my comment above (]), it comes across that this user does not have a significant comprehension of ] and does not engage in any source searching to determine notability, instead simply basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles. In the discussion at the first link in my comment here, it has become obvious that the article was nominated for deletion solely based upon the state of sourcing in the article at the time of its nomination. The rationale provided was "One source will never be enough to pass GNG" (). However, per ], a part of the main Notability guideline page, topic notability is ''not'' based upon the state of sourcing in articles. I tried to explain this at the deletion discussion, but the user does not seem to comprehend this, replying to my comment with, "In general thegeneral notability guidelines trump sport specific guidelines. So the fact that I was aware of the notability guidelines for sports can not overcome the fact that the general notability guidelines are not met with one source." (). I can understand this type of error being made by a new or relatively new editor, but an editor with a high rate of AfD nominations and !votes should be aware of these basic parameters of WP:N. Topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it's right there on the main WP:N page. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
* '''Strong support''' I would have supported and out-and-out block, though I can see this as a reasonable compromise. Also, I feel that this restriction should not be revisited for at least 1 year, given the long history at play here. John Pack Lambert's AfD antics have cost this community countless precious man hours, and have driven productive editors off of Misplaced Pages. Some of the stuff going on here is bordering on ] territory. JPL, if you truly want to improve your working knowledge of the notability guidelines, I'd recommend that you take a step back from AfD nominations altogether, and instead start working from the other end - find articles that are currently sitting at Afd and start trying to source and "rescue" them. You can gain a better grasp of the relevant policies and guidlines, as well as discover how to better evaluate sources when you do this type of actual encyclopedia editing, as opposed to scatter-shotting a whole bunch of serial drive-by AfD nominations. ] (]) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*I think thos line from the notability guidelines for baseball players needs to be considered "Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." I probably should have posted that before things got out of hand. I probably should have posted that instead of calling other statements rubbish. My one other thought is that I have on occasion gone above and beyond to try and keep editors here. That I can demonstate. In rhe specific case the article on the foriegn minister of Mongolia had been nominated for speedy deletion. I overturned it, brought in some sources and thanked the fairly new editor for crearing it. I probably should hunt down the diffs, and it would help if I could remember said foriegn ministers name. However it did happen and would not take too much effort to dig up.] (]) 05:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
**JPL, that long paragraph might be relevant in the broader discussion above, but it has nothing at all to do with this proposal. You do yourself no favours by posting such verbose irrelevancy. --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Lets stop wasting people's time. ] (]) 09:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' – My thoughts on this matter are essentially the same as those of ]. ] (]) 10:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Reading this thread and following the diffs, I am beginning to be concerned about JPL's competence to be involved in AfD at all. I suggest at least a six month hiatus before this can be appealed. ] (]) 10:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
{{archive top|result=Move along, folks. IP has stopped edit warring and has thus staved off a block. ] (]) 03:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)}}
At the article {{la|Bar Keepers Friend}}, the IP user {{ip|184.145.42.19}} is engaging in disruptive behavior. Their {{diff2|767758478|initial edit}} added an {{tl|advert}} tag and blanked the external link section (EL section is composed of an official link and two news articles that could be incorporated into the article). When that was reverted, they then did wholesale blanking of content, including well sourced material.{{diff2|767787676}}{{diff2|767794045}} Their argument on ] that the official link is promotional - as well as stating "''Feel free to report me or whatever''"{{diff2|767793982}}.


I suspect this will eventually reach 3RR teritory; but given the user's responses to comments on their talk page as well as prior behavior by this same IP- I chose to report it here now to see if someone else can get through to the user before blocks are necessary. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 01:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:IP has been notified ... and while typing the above, the IP blanked the same content again.{{diff2|767800450}} --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 01:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::"Blanking"...is that what it's called when you remove unreliable sources from an article, and then have to remove the content that relies upon said sources? I implore anyone to see the diff and decide for themselves. Also, please note that I informed ] of my intention to nominate the article for deletion, and asked them to be more careful in reverting numerous edits in one fell swoop because they disagreed with one or two.] (]) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::: Well, the article is never going to be deleted at AfD, and you're removing material that ... well, some of it is clearly sourced and some of it is not so great, but you're removing it without a rationale, so I've reverted you, and you're at 3RR now, so leave it for discussion please. ] 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::I agree, there's certainly some poor-quality content that should be cleaned-up. But that didn't justify blanking large sections. On the IPs talk page, they didn't seem interested in discussion - although in hindsight I should have pointed them towards ]. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} Thank you for taking the time to respond to this report. The underlying issue at-hand here is the fact that you're making repeated reversions to the article and in a back-and-fourth fashion with others. This is called '']'', which is not allowed. Instead, editors are expected to engage in proper ] and ''discuss'' the issue on the article's talk page and come to a ]. This is what you need to do... you need to discuss this dispute ] and come to an agreement. In the meantime, please do not make further reversions to the article. Doing so is disruptive, and you can be blocked for this... which is something I'd really rather not do to you... okay? :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 01:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Maybe you can just have a look at the article itself? Specifically, with regard to notability and verifiability of sources. I read the previous RfD summary, which was closed by an account found to be (if I've followed the thread correctly) a prolific sock puppet. I'm trying to make Misplaced Pages better, while others seem more interested in preserving the status quo. Further, Barek was only too happy to revert numerous edits in a go, while specifying they only had a problem with one or two. It's also interesting to me that Barek preferred to assume I would 3RR rather than assume good faith. Might that be because of the nature of their reverts???] (]) 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::I understand that you're trying to improve Misplaced Pages and make good choices and decisions (this is why nobody is blocking you), and that you're frustrated over this situation. If you start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the concerns you have with the sources cited in the disputed content and why you believe they're unreliable, and ask everyone involved to weigh in - the best decision regarding what to do (if applicable) will be reached and ''as a group of people working together''. Remember: We're all here to improve Misplaced Pages just like you are. We need to collaborate, interact, discuss, and behave towards others knowing that we're ''all on the same team and wearing the same jerseys''. If we fail to do this, coming to a decision that ''best reflects the content of the article to readers'' will be much harder, which is one of the ] in which Misplaced Pages operates and grows :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 01:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::How is the sock-puppetry of the closer relevant? Would any editor have closed that AFD differently, based on the discussion? ] (]) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::In this context, the closer of the previous AFD doesn't change the fact that consensus was a clear ''keep''. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Below is a facsimile of my reply to ] from my talk page, for context.
::::::::"For one, the user that closed the case last time was found to be a prolific sock puppet (20+ accounts, by their own admission). For another, the sources were a mishmash of the company's own website and "business-friendly" local media. Finally, if anecdotal evidence matters (it shouldn't, but did seem to in the previous AFD, so...), I've heard of '''every single other cleaner''' mentioned in the article...but not the one in the namespace. Please don't assume status quo is status correct. Like, did you look at the article? The AFD? Any references? The relevant WP policies??? I've spent the last hour and change doing exactly that, and I implore anyone who cares about keeping WP free of promotional material to do likewise. I, an inexperienced manual editor who has to flail around to get even basic things done, should not have to lead experienced editors (and admins!) around by the nose to prove my case. It's all there in black and white. Does anyone care to look?"
::::::::After that, Nfitz more or less accuses ''me'' of being a sock puppet and said I "just want to argue" . Thankfully, ] did care to look at the article, and came to the same (painfully obvious, IMO) conclusion. I hope this puts to rest the spurious allegations levelled against me.] (]) 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:{{ec}} I've warned the user for ] on ]. If the reverting continues, I'm comfortable with blocking the IP for edit warring and knowing that the user was warned first and allowed an opportunity to correct the behavior. I'm going to hold off in the meantime and keep an eye on the user's contributions. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 01:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that the article has been at AFD before. See ]. This was a unanimous well-attended keep. There's no reason to think the outcome would be any different now, AFAIK. ] (]) 01:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* Sent to AFD: ]. The previous AFD had one good source and the rest was based on the age of the product/patent. I did a quick search and did not find anything other than how to articles and articles that looked like PR/product placement. As it stands the article is nothing but an advertisement for this product. ]] 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:Thank you so much! It means a lot to me, given how other editors have deigned to treat the matter without actually considering edits and intent. I cannot believe ] wasn't deleted the first time around, and though I certainly don't speak for ] (the former "Malleus Fatuorum" from the edit history, who proposed deletion within a month of the article's creation in 2009), I suspect that ed. might have been similarly incredulous at their deletion tag being unceremoniously removed without discussion. Cheers.] (]) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
=== ] Discussion after closure ===
*Except, my dear Drmies, 184.145 has continued his ]ing tactics at ], so has clearly not taken in the information presented here. I believe a short block might be in order, or at least a topic ban from AFD. ] (]) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:*Sorry, forgot to ping {{ping|Drmies}}. ] (]) 00:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*The messages left for Admins involved in this debate at about the same time also seem to constitute personal attacks. See , , and particularly . On the other hand, his last two edits, may have been a retirement from Misplaced Pages and - so perhaps not worth doing anything. ] (]) 00:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*I saw that, ], and I closed another thread for it. I don't believe in short "attention-getting" blocks, but if this whining continues (after what appears to be a farewell shot below the belt), yes, there will be a block. ] (]) 04:22, 1 March 2017 (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)
== Continued Edit Warring by User:Xenophrenic after Expiration of Block ==
: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)
'''Admin: I withdraw my proposal, It was too soon for taking this to ANI. Thanks.'''
::Thanks The Bushranger! ] (]) 11:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Non-neutral paid editor ==
], after being blocked, and having a opened about him, has continued to edit war on articles related to the topic that got him banned. ], the administrator who blocked User:Xenophrenic, User:Xenoprenic to "leave this category and anything related to it alone". User:Xenophrenic's contributions reveal that he has not only ignored this administrative injunction, but has flagrantly disobeyed it. At this time, I would recommend that we proceed with a topic ban on all articles related to atheism and religion, broadly construed, so that User:Xenophrenic does not waste the time and energy of any more of Misplaced Pages's constructive users.
:] has been notified of this report on his Talk page.--] (]) 07:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Jobas}} Diffs please. Claiming with a link to an archived thread that's quite long but shows fairly limited support for a TBAN that the user "barely escaped" a TBAN, and claiming with no diffs that the user is edit-warring, is not helpful. Nor is showing a diff of an admin who blocked the user encouraging them to edit other areas (contrary to what you appear to believe, admins are not allowed unilaterally impose topic bans on editors, so the advice is not binding). Their block expired a week ago, and they have made a bunch of edits since then. I'm seeing a fair few article edits (including some reverts) and some talk page edits. The reverts are mostly one per article, it would seem, which makes the edit-warring claim somewhat questionable. Apologies if I am reading this wrong, but if you don't provide evidence it's not my fault if I go looking for evidence for you and can't find it wihout excessive effort. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:] WP:EW, says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so"
:While User:Xenophrenic emptied a Category:Persecution by atheists of all of the articles therein As stated by the administrator ], User:Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. User:BrownHairedGirl (in addition to ]) User:Xenophrenic that this was very inappropriate and him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request), again before his last block he emptied the category without to discussing it; the CfD ended in "no consensus" and User:Xenophrenic was in the process of being topic banned for his actions. His edit summary stated: ''rvt insertion of unsourced'', so I reverted some his edit pending the current discussion initiated by ] that covers keeping or deleting all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution.
:Now after a week of being blocked he keeping making the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned without to discussing it, as you can see , , , , , . What I suggested in ] talk page was: , So instead of keeping removing the category and edit warning or revert, I guess he should participated in the discussion created by ] and wait till we got clear consensus, but the problem he ignore to wait the result of the current debate and take unilateral side. Thanks and have a nice day.--] (]) 11:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Jobas}} Those edits all come from different articles. Even if they are all reverts (and they don't appear to be) they can only be edit-warring if he made reverts to the same articles previously. Reverting new edits once is perfectly in line with ]. And pointing out where other users disagreed with his edits previously ''also'' is not evidence of his disruption. You should stop acting like having ''x'' number of users disagreeing with someone makes them "wrong" or counts as a de facto TBAN -- for all the evidence you have provided, the two users you have named who disagree with Xenophrenic are tag-teaming with each other and with you, and are just as worthy of a TBAN as Xenophrenic. Above you say {{tq|the same edit on articles related to the topic that got him banned}} -- you ''really'' need to familiarize yourself with the difference between a ] and a ] ''before'' proposing bans. And the longer you refuse to provide evidence of disruption, the less likely I or other users will be to support any proposal you make. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{ec}} {{re|Jobas}} By the way -- you may not be aware, but I am subject to an IBAN with one of the users you mentioned in the above post. If you could verify what I am referring to ] and refrain from bringing them up in your responses to me, it would be appreciated. As I stated in , I have little patience for users who try to goad others into violating their own restrictions. I am assuming good faith at the moment (with regard to this issue -- it's becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with regard to whether Xeno has been edit-warring), but if you continue writing like you did above after I have requested you stop I will be forced to ask someone else to request you stop. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Some advice needed'''. Fact is that the CfD discussion was closed as 'no consensus' implying the content of the page was restored to status quo ex ante. Fact is that the restore has now been unilaterally reverted, obviously by means of 1 revert per article. Now what? Should ] revert these changes and wait until ] re-reverts them for the second time so that there ''is'' evidence of an edit war? ] (]) 12:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Marcocapelle}} "No consensus" means just that -- no consensus. Making edits that run contrary to what some users said in a no-consensus discussion is not edit-warring. Refusing to discuss said edits and continuing to revert regardless ''would'' be edit-warring, but all I'm seeing here is one user with a seriously flawed understanding of TBANs trying to propose sanctions on a user for violating a hypothetical TBAN that they are not currently subject to, and making non-EW edits that he doesn't like. It's becoming increasingly difficult to believe that Xeno could be the cause of whatever problem might exist here. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::: This is a pretty indirect answer, I'm just assuming that the direct answer is yes. By the way you've made it perfectly clear that it's currently too soon for taking this to ANI and ] may better withdraw this case for now. ] (]) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Hijiri88}} It was not closed as "no consensus", it was closed as "no consensus - with caveats". There was no consensus in terms of a concrete next step, but the close explicitly stated 'I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy.' and 'as given, the current title is frankly original research.' Presuming that {{u|Black Kite}} did not intend to retain original research, as would be the case in a typical "no consensus" close, Xenophrenic was right to remove the original research pending discussion of renaming the category. The only reason he appears worse in the sense of edit warring is because Eliko007 joined Jobas in restoring the category. Eliko007 is an ], the majority of whose edits are to present the same edits/arguments as Jobas (or, perhaps it's more accurate to say, to argue against Xenophrenic -- I don't know; I'm not making a socking allegation here). Removing the category was the right call. Xenophrenic has been rather aggressive in some ways, but hasn't had an SPA reverting to offset the edit warring allegation. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 03:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Rhododendrites}} There you go -- I learn something new every day. So Jobas ''et al.'' are the ones editing disruptively, and trying to force out a user who is undermining their disruption and being perhaps a little uncivil while doing it.
:::::{{ping|Jobas}} I am this close to proposing a ] for you (read: TBAN from all articles related to religion, broadly construed) following this. I have looked at a couple of your other edits unrelated to this, and they seem like, at best, we could do without them ( -- in fact -- to imply that Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christians, without a source that one of the reasons there are a lot of atheists in Estonia is because of the Nazis...). If you withdraw your frivolous and unjustified proposal below, this thread will likely be closed as withdrawn or be archived and fade into the either, but I can't honestly see this working out in your favour at this point.
:::::] (<small>]]</small>) 04:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::Acutely here it doesn't claims "Christians in Singapore are more educated/intelligent than non-Christians", the edit acutely compares between Singapore Christians and other Christian communities around the world, there is no mention in any place of non-Christians or other religions. And the edit in Estonian article it was quote of reference (World and Its Peoples: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Marshall Cavendish. p. 1066.), and it doesn't claims "there are a lot of atheists in Estonia is because of the Nazis", What the quote from the source said "This is in part, the result of Soviet actions and repression of religion". And the only mention in the quote about German occupation was "Many churches were destroyed in the German occupation of Estonia". Thanks.--] (]) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Doy.}}
:::::::No, you added the claim that Christians are more likely to hold university degrees than adherents of other religions. Not only is this not accurate to what your source said (post-secondary =/= university), but it is clearly cherry-picked and clearly biased (the statistic is actually all-but identical for the Hindu and irreligious communities in Singapore). Regarding the Estonians edit: apologies for the misunderstanding. I looked at it in a rush and it looked like you were adding a massive chunk of text to the body. It still wasn't a minor edit, though -- please do not mark such edits as minor again. ] (<small>]]</small>) 10:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:::::::God, I'm such an idiot!
:::::::{{re|Jobas}} So are you refusing to withdraw your proposal? Your above comment completely ignored the substance of my request and replied exclusively to my parenthetical clause.
:::::::If you post here again with anything other than {{tq|My proposal is not supported by evidence. I apologize for the disturbance. I withdraw my proposal.}} then I think a boomerang will be in order, and I'd be willing to guess that others would agree.
:::::::] (<small>]]</small>) 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


@] is heavily editing ] in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Topic Ban for User:Xenophrenic on articles relating to Religion and Atheism, Broadly Construed ===
*'''Support''': Despite being blocked and almost topic banned in his recent ANI discussion, User:Xenophrenic has once again proven himself incapable of learning from his mistakes and seems to be wasting the precious time of constructive editors on this encyclopedia. He blatantly ignored the order of an administrator and continues to edit war on the same things that got him censured in the first place.--] (]) 07:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
**I do not see any evidence above. Fram may have provided advice, but there is no requirement that such advice be followed, and certainly no requirement that it be followed "broadly construed" and indefinitely. Is all the indignation concerned with keeping ] on articles like ]? That kind of tagging-by-category is a very grubby form of POV pushing—does anyone really imagine that the Head Office of Atheists decreed that a particular religion be persecuted? Funny how the article does not mention anything to do with atheism that I can see. ] (]) 09:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
**{{re|Jobas}} Just to be clear what I meant by my most important point above and below: admins aren't allowed impose "orders" without prior community consensus, and ignoring/"violating" such "orders" is not sanctionable. To demonstrate how silly this is, I would ask why, if you think Xenophrenic already was subject to a TBAN, you would be proposing the same TBAN again. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' pending some evidence in support of the claims being being made. I find it difficult to believe that an editor who has only made one revert per page over the course of a week has been "edit-warring", and the lack of evidence (combined with an apparent lack of understanding of how TBANs work -- admins can only unilaterally impose bans when discretionary sanctions are in play, and even then only when the subject has been clearly warned that discretionary sanctions may be applied) makes me very suspicious. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' This page is, as far as I'm aware, not entitled "keep posting the same thing over and over again until the editor I don't like gets topic banned". And that's coming from someone who was critical of Xenophrenic's editing the last time this tiresome issue got dragged into view. ] 18:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - {{tq| after being blocked, barely escaping a topic ban at ANI}} - I see as much support for a topic ban for you, Jobas, in that thread. You've continued the edit war, too, and after a close explicitly called the category original research (ergo, obviously, not appropriate to restore until renaming is sorted out). {{tq|and having a second ANI report opened about him}} by an SPA who is either following Xenophrenic or following you. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 03:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


:That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
== How much harassment is OK? ==
:* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
{{archive top|result=Harassment is never OK, and let me just point out that is where it seems to start. In other words: IP, I think we've had enough snark out of you. Plus what {{U|Hijiri88}} said, which I won't have to copy since he already said it. And {{U|Andy Dingley}}. ] (]) 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)}}
:* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
] just will not stop. Of 11 additions (so far) to ], five (arguably six) have been personal attacks. I'm not even gonna bother with diffs. It's all on the page.
:* - 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)
Is this de rigueur? Do ''very'' experienced editors ever actually get taken to task for ] a newer IP editor? Or should I just eat it and pretend it's chocolate cake?] (]) 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*:@] - I think that '''sanction should be swiftly applied'''. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. ]&thinsp;] 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* Well, I admit 1 or 2 may have veered into rudeness, after having suffered the same, and that shouldn't happen. However, for the most part, this seems to be retaliation by this frequently blocked user for my participation in the just-closed ] case, just above. As far as I can tell, this user considers any disagreement with his overbearing and overstated positions as a personal attack. A quick review of his talk page edits, show case after case of unnecessary sarcasm and aggression. Examples are: , , , and my personal favourites and . Perhaps I should just ignore it - but the combination of such rudeness and arrogrance I find intolerable in a group project like this. I mean, really, who tells other editors to fuck off and calls them motherfuckers? Indeed, how much harassment is OK? ] (]) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*::I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: {{ping|InformationToKnowledge}}, '''do not''' attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with ''anyone's'' real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Your off-topic, ad hominem points-scoring is hardly worth a reply. I've done my time, so to speak, and now you're the one calling names. And you admitted it. I'll let the record speak for itself.] (]) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*:::I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, putting aside the small matter of my feelings, is it usual to pollute a WP project page with such...let's call it frivolity? Kinda screws up the whole thing in terms of readability.] (]) 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*::::As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Is it usual to reply endlessly on an AFD to everyone you disagree with? Which so far would be everyone else who has offered an opinion on whether the article should stay or go. The only opinion that hasn't been commented on is your own. Just state your opinion, and wait for a week. If you've got a valid point, such as an inappropriate reference - sure. But to criticize someone reappearing to the debate after an absence of 5 years - really? ] (]) 08:15, 28 February 2017 (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)
::If you're the snark police, you should do a better job policing yourself.] (]) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (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 ===
:I see no such harassment from Nfitz, and even where they admitted they ''may'' have veered a little on the rude side, that still doesn't constitute as ]. On the other hand, I see plenty of uncivil behavior from the IP here, and I would propose quite a lengthy block for them based on their block history—three blocks within the space of two days back in January, even managing to have both email and talk page access revoked—and that they clearly haven't learned their lesson. This report is purely out of retaliation because of a personal beef they have with Nfitz. ] (<small>] &#124; ]</small>) 09:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. '''However''', that does not change the fact she has been one of a '''literal handful''' of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in ] over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.
:With that in mind, I would like to say I have '''great''' difficulty assuming ] here - not when the OP editor {{redacted|]}}, which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective '''and''' when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.
:I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the ], the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
:P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::With the greatest of respect @], your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @], or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether ] had a conflict of interest when they edited ], which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. ] (]) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::See ]... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
:::All of this is pertinent. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that {{noping|EMSmile}} has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that {{noping|Andrewjlockley}} is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. ] concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
::::The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If {{noping|InformationToKnowledge}} is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be ''they both should be'' though.
::::Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. ] (]) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. ]&thinsp;] 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please reread ], and especially ]. The suggestion that being a ''published academic on a subject'' constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of ], which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::as per {{redacted|]}} is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
:::Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. ] (]) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to ]. ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
:::
:::
:::If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. ] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of ] before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? ] (]) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for ] that arises as a result.
::::::*With regards to ] has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the ). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
::::::*AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for ''more'' SRM research in their day job {{redacted|encouragement of ]}}. Also, ] explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be ''against'' doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
::::::*I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by ] on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
::::::*Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). ] (]) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery or], but I'll respond anyway.
::::::::I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
::::::::Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I wish to clarify the relationship between the (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
:::::Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was , for ten years, and is the l. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is , one of five authors of , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of . By quick count, of the other 14 authors on , one other is on the governing board, at least eight are , at least two are , and one is among .
:::::In the other direction, of ESG's , eight have signed the .
:::::The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. ] (]) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@], would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? ]&thinsp;] 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
::::::For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. ] (]) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


* Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an ''oversight'' on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*I don't see any unacceptable rudeness from either party, let alone harassment.<br />However, I do see two editors winding each up as they ] the AFD. Each of them has already made their case, so they should ''both'' now step back and let other editors have their say.<br />And ] the IP for an unfounded complaint. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:04, 28 February 2017 (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)
:*'''Agreed'''. ] (]) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (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)
*{{re|184.145.42.19}} Please read ], stop replying to every comment you disagree with, and stop accusing other users of "personal attacks" and "harassment" just for pointing out that you are doing so and that it is not helpful. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:23, 28 February 2017 (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)
::Wait ... this is the same IP that, two sections above and four hours before opening this thread {{tq|stopped edit warring and thus staved off a block}}? {{ping|Drmies}} Can you tell them to stop bludgeoning, making bogus accusations of personal attacks and opening frivolous ANI threads like you and a few others already told him earlier today to stop edit-warting? ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:39, 28 February 2017 (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)
:::For the record, I was uninvolved in the previous edit-warring at ], and only came into the ANI discussion above to point out the previous AFD, that the close was good, and the obvious futility of resubmitting it. ] (]) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (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)
* Is ] a good cleaner for ]s? ] (]) 11:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Mark Linton and copyright violations == === 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 . 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)
{{atop|The user finally got it--] (]) 08:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Mark Linton}} is an experienced user specializing on articles in wrestling. Today, I discovered ], created by him, clearly copied verbatim from elsewhere (Google gives enough hits). I speedy deleted the article and posted a notice at the talk page of the user. In the meanwhile I noticed that I was the fourth user warning him about copyright violation, and his reply to the previousl three users was always that he needs time to expand the article. I figured out that he possibly copies the text from elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, and left another notice explaining him that the attribution is necessary even in this case. In the meanwhile, he recreated the article verbatim, which I speedy deleted. He went to my talk page and left the same notice about necessity to expand the article. I asked him where the text is coming from, to which he did not reply. In the meanwhile, he recreated the article for the third time, still without an attribution. I am hesitant to delete it again or to block the user for copyright violations, since he clearly means well, but does not seem to get the point. May be someone can try explaining the point to him more efficiently. Thanks.--] (]) 08:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
: We had some more ] at my talk page which unfortunately did not help me to convince the user.--] (]) 12:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC) :what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? ] (]) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've posted some more information on this topic on his talk page. Hope that helps. — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 15:15, 28 February 2017 (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)
::: Thanks.--] (]) 15:57, 28 February 2017 (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 ].
::::Correction: I placed my comments at ], and have now cross-posted my comments to the user's talk page. — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::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 ===

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)

:'''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.
: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)
*:{{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 ==
{{atop|1=Blocked for a week and warned not to do this. Good grief. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|CoastRedwood}}
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)

: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)

::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)
:::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}} {{abot}}


== User:Earl Andrew ==
== Repeated vandalism from new user Scrape2000 ==
{{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)}}
{{archive top|ROPE, schmope. Blocked indef, garden variety ]. --] (]) 15:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Earl Andrew}}
{{User|Scrape2000}} is currently making a nuisance of him/herself. ] (]) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
: ] is getting close. They've a warning and nothing since, so let ] take its course. ] should be adequate. ] (]) 11:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


Earl Andrew is using personal attacks against me for leaving notices on ]. It is interfering in those discussions.
== Disruptive editing/harassment by ] ==
{{Archive top|result=User blocked indef by {{u|Someguy1221}} {{nac}}. ] (]) 11:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)|status=User blocked}}
This user constantly reverts correctly sourced edits out of spite because he doesn't like them, as well as grammar/spelling edits made by myself and others simply because he doesn't like the person who made the edit. Not only that, but just yesterday I saw him threaten somebody and claim that his family has "connections to the FBI and the CIA" and that his family "could have somebody's computer seized immediately", simply because someone posted on his talk page asking about why he continually reverted somebody's edits. He quickly deleted it afterwards, but it's still visible on the edit history of his talk page. Myself and others have constantly asked him to stop his disruptive edits but all he does is say "he's still learning Misplaced Pages" or threaten the user in question. Thanks. --] ] 09:02, 28 February 2017 (GMT)
:Doxxing threat right here: . ] (]) 09:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::WOW. Ok, Matt can have his editing privileges back when he can adequately explain that edit. ] (]) 09:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


Diffs:
== Ongoing IP inserting unsourced claims despite challenges ==
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269826037
{{atop|{{nac}} Blocked for a month. ] (]) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)}}
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269826716
{{user|180.145.138.96}} is constantly inserting the same unsourced claims into the same articles (] and ] despite constant reverts and challenges and having previously been given a 72 hour ban for doing so. The includes in sections tagged for requiring more references for existing content. The IP has changed within a range previously (possibly too large for blocking) but here we have a pattern of edits all under this individual IP Trying to get temporary protection has been problematic because it's been turned down before for not enough incidents despite there being a clear pattern after previous protection expired. It's also quite clear that this hasn't stopped them from just trying again later.] (]) 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:Blocked for 1 month. Apparently they did not take the hint from the last block. -] (]) 14:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 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}} {{abot}}


== Chronic refusal to comply re edit summaries/copious, tendentious editing ==
== Rangeblock with talk page access revoked ==


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 ].)
I just upgraded a checkuser-block on the range, 95.49.0.0/16 (Orange, in Poland) to lock out talk page access due to ongoing abuse on ]. Any admin is welcome to change the rangeblock back such that it allows talk page access if they are willing to monitor and deal with the abuse. Similarly, any admin is welcome to change the rangeblock back and revoke talk page access for just that IP address, though obviously the vandal will then just hop to the next address. And I won't object to admins adjusting the block any other way they see fit, keeping in mind this is a checkuser block by DeltaQuad (who I'm about to notify). --] (]) 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Yamla}} To be clear, it's a rangeblock had some assistance from CU, not a CU block ({{tl|rangeblock}} vs {{tl|checkuserblock}}, therefore normal admins can modify it. Either way when I saw my IRC notifications this morning, I was going to revoke talk anyway. -- ] <small>]</small> 19:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks for clarifying. :) --] (]) 19:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


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.)
== User:{{u|Kinnonmaniac}} ==

{{atop| Indeffed. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)}}
] but closed down after , later when there was no compliance.
Obviously - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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}} {{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).
Not sure if ] is in breach of the rules or not to be honest. He has created a whole bunch of rugby league player articles that fails ] & ]. After they're PROD'd, he removes the PRODs without explanation, resulting in a copious amount of AfD's needing to be opened. I have to consider reading RLN again and to not create the articles, but this has so far been ignored. Recent articles created: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. I would appreciate a more experienced editor taking a look and/or advising please. Cheers – '''skemcraig'''] 19:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


Despite being warned by ] (]) for edit warring on ']', they continue to restore their edits without consensus (]).
Sorry, didn't realise I had to give a reason. The reason for all of them is that they are in Super League squads, and so play for professional teams. ] (]) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:Which as I've already told you, does not entitle them to an article. They need to make an appearance in ], the ] or the ] in order to pass ]. Also, you don't '''need''' to give a reason to remove a PROD, but I believe you didn't because you knew or suspected your articles failed RLN. – '''skemcraig'''] 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:: If I don't '''need''' to give a reason then why are you complaining? Also, when you've nominated pages for deletion the discussion has been evenly split. ] (]) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::: I'm "complaining" because you're creating a copious amount of articles you clearly know fail RLN as it stands. The only people !voting ''keep'' are you and a few editors who mistakenly think a contract with a pro club passes RLN when it in fact, does not. – '''skemcraig'''] 20:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::: It doesn't '''clearly''' fail the criteria as there is debate over whether or not is does, and the votes are fairly equal. ] (]) 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::While the debate is ongoing, RLN must be applied as it is '''now''', and no these are far from equal, two of the ''keep'' !votes on the latter are actually from you! – '''skemcraig'''] 21:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::I've already apologised for that I didn't realise I had already voted. The Murray and Egodo discussions are evenly split. ] (]) 21:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "evenly split" – '''skemcraig'''] 21:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::3-2 is even, and if you count my duplicate votes one is 3-3! ] (]) 21:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::: {{re|Chocolatebareater}} An apology isn't as effective as going back and deleting your second vote. You can't vote twice in a deletion discussion. Also, neither are evenly split. On Murray, four out of six people want it deleted. On Egodo, three out of five have voted '''delete'''. Keep in mind that I am an uninvolved editor with no interest in sports, and I am telling you this. ''']]]''' 21:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Please keep in mind I'm a new editor. I tried to undo the edit but it wouldn't let me, told me it would conflict with another edit. ] (]) 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::{EC} Egodo is 4–2 in favour of delete, Murray is also 4–2 in favour of delete and Bent is 5–1 in favour of delete! – '''skemcraig'''] 21:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::Ah, I didn't realise the nominator counted as a vote. Still not a whitewash though! ] (]) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* This might be more complicated than it first appears. The issue seems to be about ] and the notability guidelines for Rugby League Football being more stringent than Rugby Union Football or Associated Football. Most of the new articles would pass under those standards. This gets into the ongoing discussion at ], the ongoing proposed new replacement of ] at ], and views of opposing editors. The AFD discussions that have taken place are not one-sided, and none have been closed that I can see. Perhaps {{ping|Fleets}} has some perspective on this. I'd also factor in that the season is about to begin, some of the articles are for players that may well meet ] shortly. Perhaps the solution is sorting out ] rather than sanctioning users at this time. ] (]) 20:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::I would welcome changes to ] regarding players who play for fully pro clubs that are in the ] and ]. The Super League players in question though have not yet played and to assume they soon will would surely be a breach of ]? I should have mentioned to ] that s/he has userspace/sandboxes to create articles away from the mainspace until they're ready for proper articles though. – '''skemcraig'''] 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::Also, I've have not seen that discussion at ], I will take a look now. – '''skemcraig'''] 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::: {{ec}} {{re|Chocolatebareater}} What about the many warnings and messages you have received? From what I can tell, you rarely ever leave edit summaries or respond to other users. ''']]]''' 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::: Unless I've missed something I haven't received any warnings, and I have responded to other users, both on @Fleets talkpage and one ]. As for edit summaries, this will be something I will try to do more of, although it was fairly obvious that the edits were removing the speedy deletion. ] (]) 20:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
*Please don't slam new editors even after a few mistakes, maybe try to carefully teach them instead. Chocolatebareater and I have had a brief talk page discussion, and he or she seems genuinely interested in doing well and mixing in with Misplaced Pages. Maybe one of the Rugby editors could colab with CBE, either on an existing page or one that they are trying to get to stick. Now here they find themselves up on some kind of charges. So Chocolatebareater, as I've mentioned before, please endure the climb up the Misplaced Pages hill, ask questions as you've done in this section, and have fun. It gets better. ] 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
** I fully support {{u|Randy Kryn}}'s proposal. Even as a veteran editor, I am fully aware of the learning curve that Misplaced Pages has. After observing the discussion as an uninvolved editor, I don't believe that CBE is being intentionally disruptive. Pairing them with an experienced editor would be a great idea. ''']]]''' 21:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
:::For the record, I do '''not''' believe Chocolatebareater should be blocked or anything like that. I would like him/her to realise that policy like ] cannot be simply ignored because you don't like it. I don't think any sanctions are forthcoming, but If any sanctions at all come from this ANI discussion, it should only be as far as Chocolatebareater being barred from creating anymore player articles until they agree to follow the RLN policy as it stands. – '''skemcraig'''] 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Thanks but I'm not sure I'm cut out for this editing lark. I have tried to make a positive impact, and have certainly not purposely broken any rules. Hopefully I have done some good during my brief time editing. I wish you all the best in editing in general and coming up with new guidelines for rugby league players. Cheers. ] (]) 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::: {{re|Chocolatebareater}} If you want to leave, there's nothing we can do to stop you. But if you want my advice, don't let one misunderstanding stop you from editing if that's what you enjoy doing. Also bare in mind that there are a number of that are much more lenient than the mainstream Misplaced Pages, depending on which best suits your interests. ''']]]''' 22:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::{EC} Try and read the guidelines and policies as you come across them, take other editors advice etc.. and you can be "cut out for this editing lark" as you put it. I'm only a newbie myself after all and still learning all the ropes. Rather than early retirement from the Wiki, maybe consider joining ] instead? – '''skemcraig'''] 22:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
::::Chocolatebareater, right now, without answering, go to the article of either your favorite Rugby player or the article of the best Rugby player in history (who I wouldn't recognize from ]) and make an edit in or near the lead. Find a word that you can improve, or add a comma, or make sure each sentence flows well and explain the information or concept. Imagine thousands of readers reading that page, and your edit both improving their experience and their overall understanding of the topic. There are some edits you will remember for years, and add the page to your watch list to make sure good edits have a chance of sticking around. And if you really want to leave, at least make that edit you'll remember. ] 22:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


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.
== IP editor 82.7.125.216 / 81.104.12.193 edit warring ==


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)
The following editor who goes by the following IPs: ] and ] is engaging in a protracted edit-war on the ] and ] articles. Their edits violates the long-standing manual of style for Ireland articles provided at ].


: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)
The original editor to revert them, {{ping|User:Daithidebarra}}, tried to engage with them on the talk pages ] and ] to which the IP ignored. Daithidebarra also left the IP several talk back notifications at ] so the IP knew of the discussions.
: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 also detailed precisely the manual of style in use and how the IPs edit-summary arguments held no weight at ], to which the IP has obviously ignored.
::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 ==
The IP had been given a warning and final warning at ] back on the 17th to which they have also ignored.
{{atop
| result = Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. ] (]/]) 03:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
* one edit in two different articles in 2 weeks is edit warring? I'm more concerned that you referred to this edit as vandalism in a warning on the users talk page. It's a difference of opinion, sure. But vandalism? Looking at ], editors refer to this name as "a fact". However no reference or source is supplied. The link to the 1661 name is . Instead of going back and forth over the name, why not just add a reference to it? I assume that's easy enough to find, given that ] exists. That should end the discussion, unless I'm missing something. ] (]) 23:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


* {{Userlinks|EdsonCordeirodeSouza}}
== Ben Swann ==
{{atop|1=One issue 1: Page protection endorsed as permissible within WP:INVOLVED.


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 .
On issue 2: {{u|Nergaal}} raises a content dispute which should be (is being) resolved on the article talk page. No need for this thread to continue as a duplicate discussion venue, and nothing else here presently requires admin tools. -- ] (]) 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)}}

I just protected {{la|Ben Swann}} because of an edit war prompted by one user who keeps reinstating material suggesting that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory might be true, and that Podesta may indeed therefore be implicit in child abuse. This is a pretty straightforward ] issue, IMO, but since I have been working to point this out to the user I'm bringing it here for review. I rathe rhoped that this bullshit story would no longer be a problem for us, but apparently it is. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
:{{nao}} I appreciate Guy requesting this review. I agree that the page protection was appropriate but I don't think Guy should have been the one imposing it (or ) since he was plainly involved in the dispute. I could be mistaken but I'm not aware of any sort of BLP exemption to ]. Admin tools shouldn't be used as a trump card to win a content dispute, regardless of the righteousness of one's position. Ok, I'll leave it at that. <small>(I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.)</small> --] (]) 00:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::Consider: <blockquote>'''In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.'''</blockquote> A straightforward BLP violation such as this one would, I think, fall under this provision. ] (]) 00:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Agree with BMK. The difference between protecting to avoid BLP violations and watching like a hawk to justifiably revert them is the difference between the dry and swampy road leading to the same destination. ] 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::Yup, looks a good call. ] (]) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*Good call by Guy, and the warning was appropriate. Clicking ] and searching for "BLP" shows that removing BLP problems is desirable even in a situation that would otherwise be wheel warring. ] (]) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
* good call on the protection. The disruption is from an inexperienced editor and I have given them notice of the two sets of DS on the topic, in . ] (]) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
* Its all good by me. Good call ] on the protection. --] <sup>] </sup> 01:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
* ] applies. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
* Straightforward enforcement of BLP, which sometimes requires discussion and action at the same time. That doesn't make an administrator involved. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 04:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
===Can I have some clarifications please?===
If I understand correctly, this has started from . I provided on the talkpage a fairly detailed reasoning which to me seems to have been ignored by all parties, including the threatening admin. It appears to me that there are other editor(s) that try to make other edits, and several editors, including this admin seem to think that I am that party or that I am defending that party. I would like to point out that the introduction of the whole subject uses the exact wording I put in the article, not the current wording used (see ]). Why am I being threatened again when I am pointing out the impreciseness currently in use? ] (]) 09:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:Oh, it appears to me that this admin is in a haste to stop any discussion even in the talkpage. ] (]) 10:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::"a fairly detailed reasoning which to me seems to have been '''rejected''' by all parties". I fixed that for you. Pretty much everyone understood your reasoning and rejected your argument. We do not present facts as attributed opinions. We certainly wouldnt even remotely consider doing so regarding child abuse and living people. You have stated your position. It was rejected. ] (]) 10:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== User:Janessian is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia ==
== Gatorsfan25 ==
{{userlinks|Gatorsfan25}}


Has been warned many times. Keeps adding incorrect information and WP:CRYSTALBALLING on commentator parings for sports articles. The parings will be announced in the summer! ] (]) 02:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::Though recognizing that sports commentators are often retired athletes who have lost their trim, I hope it hasn't come to the point of literally paring them, at least not on camera. Could get messy. Less radical approaches such as Weight Watchers or Slimfast would be my recommendation. ''']]''' 09:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:Could you provide ]s to show where he's doing this instead of making us do your work for you? ] (]) 02:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:Also, you were supposed to notify Gatorsfan25 that you've started a discussion concerning him. I have done so. ] (]) 02:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::, , , , <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)</small>


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)
== An problematic IP ==
:], 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)
Can you guys take a look at this IP's ], because this IP had been for ]. Because this editor or editors keep linking phrases that don't need to linked, edits like to music related articles, I know that most of the IP's edits are not considered as vandalism but my problem is when this IP edit a article, it brings no new content at all. Just go to articles like ], I think this editor is using this article as a sandbox.


* 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)
I have reported this IP to other administrators about this issue recently to ] and ], but I didn't get a quick response. This IP just recently made these edits at the ] article. Look, I hate being the boy who cried wolf here, but my problem is the IP has made too many grammar mistakes, and most of the changes essentially only contributed to corrupting the language and added nothing to the content. I don't understand what the user was trying to achieve. ] (]) 00:43, 1 March 2017 (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)
:Hi ]. I was busy and missed your message on my talk page when you left it. Sorry about that, man :-/. I'll look into this and get back to you. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 07:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*::@], @], @], how will we respond to his messages? , , , , ] (]) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::So I do see what you're talking about, but what I ''don't'' see are recent attempts to discuss the issue directly with the user. The last warning was left on February 20th. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 07:26, 1 March 2017 (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)
:::{{ping|Oshwah}} I know the last warning was left on February 20th and I should have left a very recent warning to the talk page, but the reason I didn't leave a warning because most of the edits to other articles recently didn't seem disruptive to me, so I didn't bother, but realized now, I should have. ] (]) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (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)
::::] - It's all good, dude. This is why these noticeboards exist - to make sure we're doing the right thing :-). If attempting to warn or help educate the user doesn't go anywhere, and if the edits in concern continue -- let me know and we'll go from there. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 08:00, 1 March 2017 (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 ==
== Disruption and personal attack by user MarnetteD ==


MarnetteD a thread from ] apparently on the basis of past edits which MarnetteD (and some others) consider trollish behavior. I had and have no opinion about the past behavior, but I the removal because it's improper to effectively ban an editor from the reference desks based <u>solely</u> on <u>past</u> behavior. In other words, trolls should be given the opportunity to change their trollish behavior, and there is nothing trollish about the removed thread. MarnetteD , referring to me as an "enabler". I , citing ] and requesting MarnetteD to seek consensus for the removal. Once again MarnetteD , this time escalating to calling me "loser". The removal stands as of this moment. For brief further reading, see ].


There is in my view a vandalism case in the wikipedia page ].
This complaint is not about the merits of the removal, which are not really a matter for this page, but about the disruptive refusal to seek consensus for a disputed edit—disputed in good faith by an established editor in good standing (])—and the personal attacks (]) against said editor. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:To be fair, there ''have'' been issues with an LTA trolling the ] with blatantly racist, degrading, and offensive questions in the past. I would understand that MarnetteD removed this reference desk question believing it to be another such disruptive post. I will also agree that the back-and-fourth reverting of the post should not have happened and a discussion should have taken place. If you reverted the removal believing the question to be legitimate, then it should have stopped there and a discussion should have been started by MarnetteD if there was a disagreement. ] - calling someone a "loser" and an "enabler", although not ''nearly'' as insulting or serious as the ''numerous'' edits we've both seen editors refer to another, isn't okay to do. You should always respect one another regardless of the disagreement at-hand. While I'm tempted to refer to these as just "pokes or prods", they ''are'' ] no matter how big or small you look at it. I think that you two just need to shake hands, and discuss the matter with one another. I see no reason to take action so long as you both agree to do so :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 07:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Blocked''' I have blocked {{Userlinks|MarnetteD}} for 24 hours for edit-warring, and for the misuse of an edit-summary to make a ] on another editor. --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::{{ec}} I see that ] placed a 24 hour block on you for the edit warring and the personal attacks you left in your edit summaries, ]. I feel that you should have an opportunity to respond to this ANI report and discuss your side of the issue here. If you file an unblock request with the promise to not continue the edit warring and with the promise to refrain from ''any'' further personal attacks (and, of course, if ] doesn't object to this) -- ''I will grant your unblock request''. I feel that you should have an opportunity to respond here. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 07:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Meanwhile, I have restored the disputed thread, subject to consensus to remove it. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|Oshwah}} This is a case of edit-warring by an experienced editor who twice used edit summaries to make personal attacks, and followed that up with more incivility in a discussion on Mandruss's talk. I think that MarnetteD's explanation would be better made as an unlock request. --] <small>] • (])</small> 08:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::] - I was not aware of the talk page discussion that followed - thank you for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate your response and your input. While I absolutely do not condone personal attacks and edit warring, I ''do'' support the principal that blocks should only be made for the duration that puts a stop to the problem; If someone experienced such as MarnetteD makes an unblock request with the promise to stop the disruption, I see no reason to deny the request. However, you ''are'' the blocking administrator and I will respect and honor this and leave the decision in your hands. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 08:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Oshwah}} Thanks. I agree that blocks are preventive rather than punitive, so ''if'' MarnetteD makes an appropriate unblock request with appropriate assurances, then of course any admin should feel free to unblock.<br />I just don't think it would be appropriate to unblock without those assurances. --] <small>] • (])</small> 08:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::FWIW, I am not interested in "punishing" anybody or "teaching them a lesson". Although I strongly object to the PA, my main objective was to get MarnetteD to seek consensus for the edit, and regrettably an ANI complaint was the only recourse left. If there was a better way I'd be interested in learning about it. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 08:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
{{deindent}}It seems to me that anyone who elects to be an '''"admin"'''{{spaced ndash}}and is upset when called '' "enabler" and "loser"''{{spaced ndash}}should first consider growing a ''']'''. Get over it! —&nbsp;<strong>]</strong>&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp; 09:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:Nobody is upset here, Gareth Griffith-Jones. Ignoring the other concerns expressed here... the bottom line is that we have policies regarding how we ]; they clearly disallow making ] or engaging in ] with others -- ''it's one of our ]''. Experienced and long-term editors ('''especially''' administrators) are ''expected'' to know and understand this policy and follow it. We are to treat one another with respect and we are not to threaten, name-call, intimidate, or make personal attacks towards one another. ''Period''. Editors who do so repeatedly can be blocked for this. I also don't fully understand your response here. The person that the personal attacks were aimed toward is not an administrator, and the editor explained ''just above'' that his intentions were not to punish or retaliate to the behavior. Did you take time to read through the entire thread? What exactly are you trying to say here? ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 10:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


'''Pls Understand whole matter'''
== Vandal redirects to ] ==


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 ,
A blocked user {{u|Kingshowman}} has a new hobby of using socks (the last one was {{u|The Grand Puppeteer}}) to create redirects from offensive items such as ] to ]. The socks repeatedly create at least some of the redirects. Would it be possible to create an edit filter disallowing non-autoconfirmed (possibly not even extended confirmed) users to create redirects to ] or redirects to redirects to ] (to avoid subsequent rectification by a bot)?--] (]) 08:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
reason being, i check throughout history of that page that these three divison have there for many years.
:My initial thought is that I don't see a problem with creating an edit filter like this (although others may disagree - I welcome their input). I'd just leave it at the non-autoconfirmed level; an edit filter disallowing accounts from doing so unless they're extended confirmed seems unnecessary (again... others might disagree with me). ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


But recently one editor changed all that in three edits these are following -
== Problematic AfD ==
{{atop|AFD has been semi-protected to stop the disruption and allow the discussion to continue smoothy. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)}}
Just drawing attention to ]. All of the "keep" !votes are by single purpose accounts, new editors, and IP editors (one of them voting more than once). Strongly smells of conflict of interest, paid editing, socking, and/or off-wiki canvassing). An admin to referee this one would be helpful. ] (]) 08:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:I have semiprotected the AfD page for 3 days; this should allow the discussion to proceed with less disruption. ] (]) 09:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

::Thank you! ] (]) 09:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)t
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}} {{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>

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 <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.

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 .

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)
: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)
::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 ==

{{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)

== Possible socks ==


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)

Latest revision as of 22:19, 17 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    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

    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)
    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)
    @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)

    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)
    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)
    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)

    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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    He only joined in 2021. I've looked at his "Pages Created" count, what he has been doing is creating pages for small figure skating events (for their yearly editions) since late 2023. That's hardly "a long history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    “Small figure skating events” like the National Championships of the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Italy; the Grand Prix series, including the Grand Prix Final; and the Challenger Series events? 1) Article Creation isn’t the only metric by which Misplaced Pages contributions can be measured, and 2) Referring to any of those events as “small” is ridiculous and insulting to all parties involved. I should have never even responded yesterday when three different administrators asserted that the original complaint was groundless. I’m done responding to this complainant. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    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)
      • 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)
    • 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 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. 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)
    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.

    Talk page

    Back on the talk page, they:

    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. EF 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. EF 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.

    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:

    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.

    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)
    • 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)
    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)

    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)

    Stalking from @Iruka13

    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):
    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)
    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:

    Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. EF 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. EF 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    You can add this to the page in question – {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} – or you can add this to a specific citation – {{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}} – to keep the bot away. See -- Stopping the bot from editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that Citation bot did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on Ludlow Massacre, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Citation bot is not a user script, but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
    "All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
    -WP:Bot policy Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the person who is using the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Most of these seem to have been invoked by Abductive, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee (Personal attack removed). Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
    Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
    These edits were suggested by the following user:
    Legend of 14 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found another bad date in another article:
    Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found another bad date in another article:
    Suggested by user:
    Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates Legend of 14 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    User:Citation bot is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because it is not necessarily an error. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is still about Citation bot. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    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. EF 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
    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

    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), 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

    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: 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: , .
    • 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.

    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)
    Red X 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)

    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.

    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 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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    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 is using personal attacks against me for leaving notices on WP:BLPN. It is interfering in those discussions.

    Diffs:

    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.


    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)

    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:

    1. Josef Sorett (September 2024) – Blocked for 48 hours after repeatedly reverting another editor’s content without reaching consensus.
    2. Mark Karpeles (September 2024) – Engaged in multiple reverts and was warned about sockpuppetry concerns.
    3. Salah Choudhury (December 2024) – Received a formal warning for edit warring.
    4. 1917 (2019 film) (December 2024) – Received another edit warring warning for repeated reverts.
    5. Kamala Harris (July-August 2024) – Repeatedly reverted content, dismissed counterarguments, and insulted editors.
    6. Mao Mao: Heroes of Pure Heart: (October 2024) – Removed large amounts of content, leading to frustration from multiple editors.
    7. Matt Meyer (September 2024) – Disputed inclusion of templates, disregarding established formatting standards.
    8. Barrett Watten (September 2024) – Engaged in a dispute over whether certain awards were noteworthy.
    9. Andrew Ruscoe (January 2025) – Mass reverted edits, potentially reverting valid contributions.
    10. The Keys to the White House (November 2024) – Involved in a POV dispute.
    11. 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

    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)

    Possible socks

    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)
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions Add topic